PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Development Agency Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 13 February.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—

North-West Regeneration

Nicholas Winterton: When he next expects to visit the Government office of the north-west to discuss regeneration of the region.

Barbara Roche: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit the Government office of the north-west. He last visited it in September and I visited it in November.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister is aware that not even a borough such as Macclesfield, which currently has an unemployment rate of just 1.1 per cent.—and is brilliantly represented—can rest on its laurels. We must look to the future not least because of the tragic announcement of 993 redundancies on the periphery of the constituency by BAE Systems at Woodford. Does the hon. Lady not accept that it is absolutely essential for the future prosperity and economic growth of my area that the regional planning guidance receives an early approval? The matter currently rests with a Minister in another place, Lord Falconer.

Barbara Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. I know that he and other Members of Parliament have taken a great interest in the redundancies, and we extend our sympathies to all those affected. Of course it is right that we need to move as quickly as possible, which is why the Government office and all the other agencies, including the Employment Service, are working hard. It is right that we move ahead with the plan, and we shall do so as soon as we practically can.

Andy Burnham: When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the Government office of the north-west to discuss these issues, will she stress the important role that sport and sports development can play in regenerating deprived communities in the north-west, especially those such as mine which have proved to be the hardest to regenerate and turn round? In particular, will she ask the Government office of the north-west to give whatever support it can to Wigan council's exciting proposals for a new community sports complex and a new stadium and home for Leigh RMI and Leigh Centurions?

Barbara Roche: I am aware of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, and I know that he used to play cricket for Lancashire Schoolboys. We can all admire his sporting prowess, from which the Commons team may benefit.
	Of course I recognise the part that sport can play in regeneration. I spoke recently to some of the businesses involved in the sports and tourism industry about what can be done. When I next visit the area, I shall be delighted to have such discussions.

Civil Emergencies

Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 530, on civil emergencies, if he will make a statement on the updating of guidance to local authorities.

Christopher Leslie: The Government have issued guidance to local authorities on the response to a deliberate release of chemical or biological agents. The guidance is under continual review, and the civil contingencies secretariat at the Cabinet Office remains in dialogue with local authorities on the matter.

Tam Dalyell: What guidance is being given about the horrendous eventuality of smallpox?

Christopher Leslie: Many Members will be aware of the BBC 2 television programme broadcast on that subject yesterday, which described a hypothetical situation. I emphasise that smallpox has been eradicated and that good contingency plans are in place. We have substantial stocks of vaccine but, clearly, their size and location are not in the public domain for security reasons. The Public Health Laboratory Service is always updating its guidance, which is available to GPs on its website, and that guidance has also been sent out by public health directors.

Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that civil emergencies occur for different reasons, be they climatic, medical—as he has described—or terrorist? What consideration has he given to the appointment—or what consideration has he given to talking to the Prime Minister about the appointment—of a Minister, perhaps not a Ministry, who can co-ordinate the activities of different Departments? Does he not accept that appointing a senior civil servant for such a role is not enough?

Christopher Leslie: Last year all Members were sent a letter on the matter by the Home Secretary, who chairs the Civil Contingencies Cabinet Committee. To make sure that we have the generic capability to co-ordinate emergency planning and civil contingencies, the new secretariat has been established at the Cabinet Office to allow us to be flexible and respond as necessary to whatever eventualities may arise.

Andrew MacKinlay: What preparations and plans exist for the possibility of a major aircraft failure or collision over central London? That is increasingly possible because of the intensification of the use of Heathrow airport and the aviation industry's wrong demand for an extra runway at Heathrow.

Christopher Leslie: I would not want to open up a discussion on the extra runway, but in terms of risk, new technology is being developed all the time to improve air traffic control. My hon. Friend will know that response and recovery activities fall in the first instance to local authorities and the police. We are ensuring that the tools are available so that those organisations are well placed to cope in the unlikely eventuality of anything happening.

Simon Thomas: What preparation has been made for a major offshore incident that could result in a massive oil spill, similar to the Braer disaster or the Sea Empress disaster off the coast of Pembrokeshire? Both reports on those disasters recommended placing a statutory duty on local authorities to deal with offshore oil spillages, but that has still not been put in place. Will the hon. Gentleman promise to introduce that?

Christopher Leslie: I will submit the hon. Gentleman's comment to the emergency planning review that the Cabinet Office is undertaking. The maritime authorities and, indeed, local authorities ensure that we learn lessons from the accidents that occur from time to time. I shall certainly try to give the matter closer consideration.

Rural Policy

Paul Tyler: Which Departments and agencies are involved in the development of rural policy for whose co-ordination his office is responsible.

John Prescott: I am responsible for the Government office network which provides a strategic presence in the regions for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, indeed, for the social exclusion unit whose work covers issues of relevance to rural areas.

Paul Tyler: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the written answer given by the Prime Minister last Friday at column 571 in which he describes in detail all the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister? There is no mention of rural affairs or the co-ordination of rural policy. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give a single example of when his intervention has secured an improvement in rural policy since the general election?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the fact that we have established a Department for rural affairs specifically to deal with such matters. Many of the issues that he raises, which he used to refer to the Cabinet Office before the last election, are now dealt with by another Department.

Chris Pond: The rural White Paper said that we need to have a vibrant living and working countryside and that to achieve that aim a range of essential services needs to be in place in rural areas. I am pleased to say that there are plans to open two new rural post offices in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to ensure that the work of all relevant Departments is co-ordinated so that our rural communities have those services?

John Prescott: Many of those issues were highlighted in the rural White Paper, for which I had responsibility in my previous job. We thought that it was important to separate rural areas from urban areas and not to get the two mixed up. We made it clear that special programmes were needed, which we identified in the rural White Paper and which are being carried out by the Department. Many of my hon. Friend's points are being attended to directly by the Department and the relevant Minister.

Tim Collins: The Deputy Prime Minister said today and, indeed, in the past in response to written questions that lead responsibility for rural policy now rests with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He however, is, responsible for the work of the social exclusion unit. Does he recognise that there are serious problems of social exclusion in many rural areas? Will he specifically ask the social exclusion unit to consider rural policies?

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; it is all the more valid after 18 years of a Tory Administration under whom we saw a doubling of poverty and a decline in bus transportation, the provision of schools and post offices in rural areas. That is why the social exclusion unit has been deliberately designed to look specifically at those problems, which we identify as existing as much in rural areas as they do in urban ones. Indeed, a specific study is under way on transport in rural areas because without an adequate transport system many people in those areas cannot get access to the services that they need. That is why we have increased considerably the amount of transport resources in rural areas, set against the decline that we saw in those 18 years.

Children in Care

Jonathan R Shaw: What research his Department has carried out into the educational attainment of children in care.

Barbara Roche: The social exclusion unit is investigating what more might be done to raise the educational attainment of children in care. It is currently gathering evidence and undertaking an intensive programme of visits to schools and children's homes. It is also consulting widely with professionals and with children in care.

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work of the social exclusion unit has been critical in sending a message to all local government departments that the record of educational attainment of looked-after children has been woeful. It is something for which we all have responsibility, particularly since we gather that 75 per cent. of young people leaving care do so without educational qualifications.
	However, there is some good news. In the Medway towns in my constituency, two such young people have been the first to receive bursaries from the local authority to go to university, and there is one more to follow. That is the sort of thing that we want to see—young people who have been in care getting the same as other young people, rather than anything special. I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will continue to monitor carefully the attainment of such young people, so that they get what they deserve, which is nothing less than others get.

Barbara Roche: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The record of attainment of educational qualifications among young children in care is woeful, and we all need to take that very seriously. Looked-after children need our absolute commitment, which is why I am delighted that the social exclusion unit is pursuing the matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's news.
	Some good practice is on the way. For example, I recently visited Brighton and Hove council to talk to teachers, foster parents and looked-after children. The council's track record of designated teachers is very good.

Angela Watkinson: What mechanisms are in place to assess the relative success of the social exclusion unit compared with its costs?

Barbara Roche: The social exclusion unit takes on projects at the direction of the Prime Minister and under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister. So far, it has had a tremendous success rate. A good example is the meeting of targets on reducing rough sleeping and on reducing teenage pregnancy. Those are extremely good developments. Of course, there are more projects on the way, such as that on transport which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already mentioned.

Curry Report

Michael Jack: Whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a submission to Sir Donald Curry's report on the future of farming.

Christopher Leslie: No Cabinet Minister made submissions to Sir Donald Curry's commission, as it was established by the Government in the first place.

Michael Jack: I am sorry that the Minister cannot say that the duchy itself made a submission to the Curry commission, which has produced the most significant report on British food and farming for many years, and offers an important way forward. In the light of its findings and the worries of duchy tenants as they see, for example, investment in more housing and changes in land management arrangements for the estate, what investment will be made in duchy farms in Lancashire to unlock their potential? When will the Minister be able to give the House those details?

Christopher Leslie: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of the importance of the commission's findings on the future of farming. The report is full and comprehensive, and aims to make the farming industry more sustainable and profitable. Clearly, many of those issues rest with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Although the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Macdonald, is in another place, I shall certainly ensure that he is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's questions and comments.

David Drew: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. Is it not important that central and local government take a lead in ensuring that Curry's proposals are advanced? Anything that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends can do must only be to our advantage.

Christopher Leslie: Rural affairs cut across all Departments. As Ministers, we all must be aware of rural as well as urban dimensions. The Royal Society study by Sir Brian Follett will provoke discussion on a number of important issues that need to be considered, but I shall ensure that I pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Special Advisers

Julian Lewis: What action he has taken to co–ordinate policy on the duties of special advisers among Government Departments.

Christopher Leslie: As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Select Committee on Public Administration, a code of conduct for special advisers is now in place, with duties and responsibilities also set out in a model contract of employment.

Julian Lewis: We all know what Jo Moore said on 11 September about burying bad news, but since then she has tried unsuccessfully to have a crony appointed as her Department's head of media and, more recently, has succeeded in damaging the Prime Minister by suggesting, heaven forfend, that he regards the trade union movement as wreckers. Is she setting a good example for special advisers in other Departments to follow?

Christopher Leslie: I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's obsession with these matters. On the particular case that he mentioned, there was an open competition for that appointment; somebody else got the job and the Cabinet Secretary cleared the appointment. It is now time to move on.

Tony Wright: May I repeat my oft expressed view that the way to see off the Opposition's absurd fixation with special advisers is to move ahead, building on the code that we have already established; introduce the civil service legislation that we promised; set a cap on the number of special advisers; and define their relations with civil servants? That would put a stop to the nonsense that the Opposition keep bringing up.

Christopher Leslie: As I said to the Select Committee on Public Administration last week, we need to make sure that we enshrine certain principles in a code of conduct for special advisers. That code is a new initiative from this Administration and will create more transparency in those areas. We can look at a cap on numbers and we shall want to consult on those matters when any future civil service legislation is introduced.

Alan Beith: Does the Minister recognise that it is important that a clear boundary between political advisers and civil servants, who must be politically impartial, is maintained? What action has the First Secretary of State taken to ensure rigorous enforcement of that code in the light of what has happened, and when will the civil service Bill to which the Minister referred be published?

Christopher Leslie: The code of conduct makes plain, as does the ministerial code of conduct, the parameters of special advisers' work and operations. We are working on civil service legislation and will publish it when we are ready to do so. The code of conduct should be welcomed all round; indeed, the Public Administration Committee noted that it was both a welcome step forward and progress that should be acknowledged.

Gareth Thomas: In the light of the excellent fourth report of the Public Administration Committee, which was published last February, does my hon. Friend intend to take any further action in that respect? In particular, he should take note of the fact that the report says that the official Opposition
	"were unable to give a categorical assurance that its Short Money funding"—
	our taxpayers' money—
	"was used exclusively for parliamentary business."
	Will he seek a guarantee from those on Opposition Front Bench that in future such assurances will be given?

Christopher Leslie: That is an interesting question. Not many people realise that the Opposition benefited from a threefold increase in the Short money, which goes to support their work—it is purely for parliamentary business, of course, and I am sure that it is true that central office is not propped up by that £3.4 million. I tried to do a bit of research the other day and it seems that in their annual report and accounts, the Tories simply lump Short money with the rest of the income that they generate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Tim Collins: Since the Minister is on the subject of threefold increases, can I point to the threefold increase, from roughly £50 million to just under £150 million, in the Government's spending on advertising through the Central Office of Information? Since the most senior special adviser of them all is Alastair Campbell, how does the Minister justify this morning's reports that Mr. Campbell will get his sticky fingers on taxpayers' money and have direct control over Government advertising?

Christopher Leslie: Another conspiracy theory from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Central Office of Information undertakes extremely important marketing campaigns—for example, on public health and protection or on recruiting extra doctors and nurses. If he feels that that is money poorly spent, I shall start to worry for him.

Tim Collins: The Minister is renowned for being a man of his word, so will he give the House a categorical assurance that Mr. Alastair Campbell will not be in any position to give orders to the Central Office of Information as a result of the restructuring, and that any official of the Central Office of Information will be entitled to decline to follow any instruction given by Mr. Alastair Campbell—yes or no?

Christopher Leslie: The Central Office of Information has recently undergone its quinquennial review and the results were published yesterday. Those involved closer working with the Government information and communications services, as well as the strategic communication unit. We must have coherent government, which has a strong corporate strategic management. We must make sure that those recruitment exercises and public health campaigns are undertaken as effectively as possible.

Crispin Blunt: What his estimate is of the salary bill for special advisers in Government Departments in the financial year 2002–03.

Christopher Leslie: The Government have already announced changes to the pay system for special advisers based on civil service job evaluation. The process of evaluation is not yet finished, so the salary costs for the next financial year will be provided once the exercise is completed.

Crispin Blunt: There's a surprise—that the figures are not available. Will the Minister confirm that part of those salaries is paid to Alastair Campbell? From the hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), he made it clear that the Central Office of Information will be answerable to a political appointee. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that that is a corruption of government?

Christopher Leslie: Is it not amazing that the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that he is a former special adviser? That level of masochistic self-loathing in the Conservative party is deeply distressing. The hon. Gentleman should realise that we believe that the Government must be led strongly from the centre, and that we must make sure that we have effective and successful communications campaigns for the benefit of the recipients of public services across the country.

Poverty

Paul Goggins: When he last met representatives of UK poverty organisations.

John Prescott: On 23 January I met the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. The meeting was attended by, among others, the Poverty Alliance, ATD—Altogether towards Dignity—Fourth World, and the UK Coalition against Poverty. I also gave a keynote speech on 15 January at the Fabian society conference, which was attended by 200 organisations associated with poverty relief. I maintain regular contact with the groups in London and on my visits to other areas of the United Kingdom.

Paul Goggins: The Government have done a great deal to tackle the problem of low income, including the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that poverty is not just about money? It is also about power. What steps is he taking to ensure that people with direct experience of poverty can have a bigger say in the development of Government policy?

John Prescott: That important point was made by the all-party parliamentary group, the representatives of which come from all parts of the House. The group has made it clear that people who suffer from poverty should be actively involved in advising and in decision making here in the House. That is absolutely right. We have commissioned a report to see how we can improve on that process. Those people want a say in the programmes that we are bringing in to relieve the poverty that they are suffering.

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Andrew Robathan: What plans there are to revise paragraph 122 of the ministerial code of conduct.

Barbara Roche: None.

Andrew Robathan: The Minister will know that paragraph 122 of the ministerial code forbids financial dealings between Ministers and trade unions. When will the Deputy Prime Minister enforce the ministerial code for himself and end his financial dealings with the RMT, which are worth between £12,000 and £14,000 a year to him?

Barbara Roche: The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing the matter for some time.

Andrew Robathan: What about the ministerial code?

Barbara Roche: If the hon. Gentleman refrains from shouting, I will give him his answer. He knows that his question is nonsense. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has ruled that there has been no benefit at all. It has also ruled that the code has not been broken. The hon. Gentleman should move on and get a life.

Special Advisers

Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the accountability of special advisers.

Christopher Leslie: As with all civil servants, special advisers are accountable to Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament.

Norman Baker: That system would work if Ministers answered questions about special advisers. As well as continually blocking questions and refusing information, they do not even stick to the code of conduct introduced by the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, Mr. Major. That system does not work. Why will the hon. Gentleman not answer questions and ensure that the special advisers are accountable to this House?

Christopher Leslie: We went through all this nonsense yesterday in Westminster Hall, where the hon. Gentleman was pulled up by the Deputy Speaker for his intemperate language. I really think he needs to get a grip.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Andy King: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 February.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
	I am sure that the whole House will join me in wanting to pay our respects on the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne.

Andy King: Has my right hon. Friend had time to examine the scientific and medical opinion on the MMR vaccine? Does he agree that, whatever our view, this matter is so important that it must not be allowed to become a political football?

Tony Blair: I do urge people not to pay attention to what is sometimes called Government advice. The Government are in fact giving advice on the basis of the advice given to them by independent experts. That advice, which is that the MMR vaccine is safe and is best done in combination rather than separate jabs, is supported not only by the Government's independent advisory committee, but by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association and the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. No fewer than 90 countries around the world use the MMR vaccine, including every major industrialised country, and 500 million doses of the vaccine have been given since 1972. I say to people that the scaremongering—and it is scaremongering—about this vaccine is wrong. Often, such scaremongering does not matter, but in this case it does. If anybody has any doubts, the full evidence is available and can be given to any parent who wants it.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Her Majesty on the 50th anniversary of her accession?
	Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the number of cancelled operations has risen or fallen since he came to power?

Tony Blair: It has risen; however—[Hon. Members: "How much?"] It has risen by about 20,000; however, the number of operations as a whole has also risen by more than 500,000; 19 out of 20 operations are done on time; the average waiting time for an operation has fallen since 1997; and, therefore, although it is correct that the number of cancelled operations has risen, if we look at the number of operations as a whole—more than 5.5 million in this country—I think that the national health service has a record to be proud of.

Iain Duncan Smith: The answer is quite correct: 50 per cent. I have to tell the Prime Minister that that is not just a figure. He talks about the rise in the number of operations done, but the numbers that have been cancelled have risen as well, and that is a real tragedy for those who have to wait. [Interruption.] Well, the reality—he may not want to hear this—is that this is not one or two cases, but 80,000 people who have had their operations cancelled on the day when they were expecting to have them. That is a matter of fear and anxiety for 80,000 people—many more than when he came to power. So, as those numbers have risen and 80,000 people have had their operations cancelled, will he now tell us the reason why?

Tony Blair: As I explained a moment ago, far more operations have been done by the national health service—about 500,000 more. Less than 2 per cent. of operations are cancelled, which should put the matter in perspective. The only answer is indeed to increase the capacity of the health service, including more nurses, doctors and consultants, as well as other staff, and more beds. That is precisely why we are increasing investment in the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of cutting that investment. Therefore, whatever the problems of cancelled operations—I say that they should be put in perspective—the remedy that he has, which is to cut that investment, is the wrong remedy. The remedy that we have—invest and reform—is the right one.

Iain Duncan Smith: Before the Prime Minister talks about what he supposes is our programme, perhaps he will pay attention to the comments of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on his record. It stated:
	"public sector net investment over the five-year period since Labour came into power"
	is
	"the lowest figure for any five year period since the Second World War".
	The Prime Minister is in government and it is his record. The answer that he did not give to my question is that hospital beds are in short supply because they are being blocked by people who cannot get a care home or nursing home bed. The figure that he did not want to provide is that 40,000—nearly 10 per cent.—fewer care home beds are available since 1997 when he took over.
	Age Concern says that the care sector is in crisis. The head of the Registered Nursing Homes Association said that Government policy was to blame. The Government's policies are damaging the NHS. Is not the Prime Minister's real achievement after five years to have increased both the queue to get into hospital and the queue to get out?

Tony Blair: Public sector investment in the health service has increased under the Government and is continuing to increase. We are roughly the only major industrial country anywhere in the world that is increasing expenditure on health and education as a proportion of national income. Is it the Conservative party's case that we are not spending enough on health and education? When we announced our spending plans, Conservatives called them reckless and irresponsible. We know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the national health service because he does not believe in it. The clearest evidence of that came yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition said:
	"The health service doesn't serve anybody . . . It doesn't serve doctors or nurses. It doesn't help the people who are treated."
	What an insult to the NHS and the people who work in it! Conservatives denigrate the health service because they want to undermine it. We want to increase investment, whereas the right hon. Gentleman would cut it.

Vera Baird: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the United States authorities about a British national who is currently on death row in Georgia? His name is Tracy Housel and he is severely brain damaged. Although he has been on death row since 1986, his execution date is likely to be set this month. Will my right hon. Friend say what representations he believes he can make? Will he please act quickly, before the date is set?

Tony Blair: The Foreign Secretary has written to the Governor of Georgia and the state board of pardons and parole, urging them to commute the death sentence to a term of imprisonment. We shall continue to make representations to the state of Georgia. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the position and that we shall continue to make representations on behalf of that individual, who I believe is a joint US-UK national.

Charles Kennedy: I fully associate Liberal Democrats with the Prime Minister's congratulations to Her Majesty on this special day.
	I want to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him prior notice—in the sense that the leader of the Tory party will ask him the same question this time next week. Yesterday, the Labour-dominated Transport Committee described the Government's proposals for the part-privatisation of the London Underground and their claims that it would save £4.5 billion as inadequate and flawed. How does the Prime Minister explain that?

Tony Blair: I explain it by saying that, of course, the Committee is entitled to its view, but the value-for-money reports are being considered at the moment. They will be published and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a statement about that. The safety case—in so far as that is a point of criticism—is being assessed by the Health and Safety Executive; that is entirely proper. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must explain—if they oppose the public-private partnership which allows major infrastructure work that is urgently necessary to be done on the London underground—how they would make up the £5 billion shortfall if they took out the private element.

Charles Kennedy: Everybody in the country knows that the railway system is in a state of chaos, thanks to privatisation. Why do not the Government listen to the majority view of Londoners, and to the advice of the Labour-dominated Transport Committee and decide not to go down the route of part-privatisation for the tube? Should not the Prime Minister swallow his pride and stop this disaster in the making?

Tony Blair: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman again why we believe that this is important. The London underground will remain in the public sector from the time that the tube opens until the time that it closes. The reason that we are engaged in this public-private investment partnership is so that the infrastructure work, which is urgently needed in the tube, can be done. [Interruption.] I urge Liberal Democrat Members to listen to the arguments, rather than heckling. If we decide to do this in the old public sector financing way, we will lose the billions of pounds of private investment necessary, and all the evidence is that, if we do it in that way, the work will run over budget and over time. It is important, however difficult the decision may be, to take the right decision for the future. This plan is ready to go; it will get immediate money into the tube; and we are doing it not out of pride but because we believe it to be the right thing to do.

Martin O'Neill: When my right hon. Friend is preparing his in-flight reading for the next couple of days, would he care to take with him the report on the Chinook crash? I hope that he will look, in particular, at paragraph 174, in which Lord Jauncey and his colleagues unanimously come to the conclusion that
	"the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
	I realise that the primary response to that will be from the Ministry of Defence, but will the Prime Minister accept that many of us, who have sympathy with the Department in a variety of ways, feel that the Gordian knot of self-interest that surrounds the Department on this issue must be cut through? We look to my right hon. Friend for a better, clearer and fairer understanding of a complex issue that has been dealt with by some of the most distinguished jurists in the other place. They have come up with a conclusion that drives a coach and horses through the views of the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is obviously right to say that this is a complex issue, although I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area. Obviously, we have to study the report, and we shall do that. We shall study its complex technical detail and give a proper response in due course.

James Gray: Is the Prime Minister aware that some 350 jobs had been lost in the town of Malmesbury before yesterday's devastating news of 820 redundancies as a result of James Dyson moving some of his business to the far east? The Prime Minister will understand that that is appalling news for a town of only 4,500 people. Nationally, 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the right hon. Gentleman came to power, and manufacturing industry is now officially in recession. Will he accept personal responsibility for this, or will he seek to blame someone else?

Tony Blair: It would be right, surely, to point out that there have been 1.2 million extra jobs altogether since we came to office. It is correct to say that manufacturing has gone through a difficult time; of course it has. It has done so in many parts of the world, but I believe the best thing for manufacturing is low interest rates, low inflation and a stable economic environment, and that is what manufacturing has. If we were to go back to the policies that the hon. Gentleman used to support under the Conservative Government, which caused massive manufacturing job losses and a huge cut in manufacturing output and investment, that would be the worst thing. Having said that, of course we are deeply disappointed at Mr. Dyson's decision, but that is a decision for his company.

Desmond Turner: The Prime Minister will be aware that the performance and innovation unit's report on future energy supply is now widely available on the internet, and that it confirms that renewable sources should have a vital and increasing role in the future. [Hon. Members: "Reading."] The UK is uniquely rich in wave and tidal energy sources, but if this potential is to be unlocked, it will require a lead from the Government. [Hon. Members: "Reading."] If this can be given, there is the potential for a new green industry, providing thousands of jobs. Will—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking far too long.

Tony Blair: Over the next three years, we have committed about £260 million in an extensive capital grants programme for renewable energy. We have a target to reach 10 per cent. renewables by 2010. [Hon. Members: "Reading."] [Laughter.] There will be a—[Laughter.] I am told—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.

Tony Blair: These issues will be further canvassed in the PIU report next week.

George Osborne: What the Prime Minister just said on the MMR vaccine deals with the world as he wishes it to be, not as it is. The fact is that tens of thousands of parents do not accept his assurances that the vaccine is safe, however good the medical evidence. Instead of calling them scaremongers, should he not give them the choice of three separate vaccinations on the NHS?

Tony Blair: I really have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the position that the Conservative party has adopted today is, in my view, totally irresponsible. Let me tell him why that is the case. The evidence that I have read out is evidence not just about the importance of the MMR vaccine but about the importance of having it in combination, rather than in separate jabs. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that the evidence that that way is better comes from right round the world—not just this country. It comes from 90 different countries. [Interruption.] Can I say this to the Opposition? This is important, so let me at least give them the evidence, as that is what people are asking for.
	Every single piece of independent research that has been done around the world has found that it is important to have the MMR jab in combination, not separately. Let me inform the House that, most recently, the major US conference, as reported in the American medical journal Pediatrics, said that
	"the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism or associated disorders."
	It went on:
	"Separate administration of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines to children provides no benefit over administration of the combination MMR vaccine and would result in delayed or missed immunisations."
	Two further pieces of evidence are important. Between 1994 and 1999, for various reasons, Japan went for separate jabs, rather than the MMR combination. Over that time, when there were no deaths from measles in Britain, there were 85 in Japan. In addition, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when a previous Government had to face a similar issue in respect of whooping cough, as a result of pressure it was decided not to give the vaccine in the original form. As a result of that, the immunisation programme virtually collapsed. As a result of that, some 100 children died of whooping cough.
	This is a serious issue and I simply say to Opposition Members: read the evidence. Incidentally, the press have continually said that we have failed to provide the evidence. The evidence is published on the Department of Health website and it is available for anybody to see. Any parent who writes to the Department of Health can have the evidence, so I urge all Members of the House to have a care as to what we say on this issue, because, genuinely, the safety of children is at risk.

David Clelland: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny today's story in Newcastle's The Journal, which says that he, or his office, has personally intervened in the drafting of the forthcoming regional government White Paper to insist that it contain a clause stating that regional government cannot go ahead without the abolition of the county councils?

Tony Blair: The regional government White Paper will be published in due course and my hon. Friend will be able to see the proposals that are made there.

Iain Duncan Smith: On Sunday the Prime Minister said that the trade unions were "standing in the way of good public services". Does he stand by that?

Tony Blair: I said that anyone who opposed the necessary reform of public services was standing in the way of improvements necessary for public services. I also said that those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, want to cut essential investment in public services were grossly undermining them.

Iain Duncan Smith: I think that answer says it all.
	The Prime Minister has clearly apologised to the trade unions, as was reported today. He has gone grovelling to them. When the general secretary of the TUC called his comments "juvenile" and "bizarre", was he defending the Conservative party? When Unison issued its big advertisement attacking that, was it defending the Conservative party?
	The truth is that the Prime Minister has had to climb down. Let us ask why. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us, as leader of the Labour party, how much money the unions gave his party last year.

Tony Blair: In no shape or form are we giving way on the reform programme in the health service and the education service. [Hon. Members: "How much?"] Well, the amount of money given to the Labour party—thanks to the procedures we introduced—is there for people to see.
	It is important that we carry on with the reforms in health, education, transport, and law and order, but the reforms should be matched by investment. I will take on either people like the right hon. Gentleman who want to cut investment, or people in the trade union movement or elsewhere who want to halt the advance of reform. "Invest and reform" is right. Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what his position is.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister took a long time not to answer the question. Let us now give him the answer. The figure is £8 million, in a six-month period last year—and in the case of two unions that are either on strike or about to strike, it is nearly £1.25 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but I must tell him that the Prime Minister is here to answer questions as Prime Minister, not as leader of the Labour party. [Interruption.] Order. I am talking about the rules of the House, which the House has given me to protect. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could ask another question.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question.

Iain Duncan Smith: This issue goes right to the heart of the Government. While I fully respect what you say, Mr. Speaker, I must point out—[Interruption]—if I may—that it is about what is happening on the railways and in the Post Office. I am simply raising an issue, and asking a question about whether there are links with and reasons for Government policy. I would like to pursue that line if you are agreeable, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can ask the question—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is using some ingenuity. Let us see how he puts his question—whether he puts it in another way.

Iain Duncan Smith: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Iain Duncan Smith: I will certainly ask the question, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps in a slightly different way.
	No wonder the Prime Minister grovels to the trade unions after having attacked them, from one day to the next. The truth is—this is the reality for the present Government, so heavily linked to the trade unions—that five years ago the Prime Minister used to talk about "24 hours to save the health service"; on Monday, it was 24 hours to save his donations. Instead of briefing and retreating, attacking and withdrawing, why does the Prime Minister not cut his links with the strikers and the wreckers?

Tony Blair: In regard to the actual industrial dispute, we have made it clear that we believe the strike action is totally unjustified and should not take place. In relation to the national health service, however, there is a real issue, as there is in relation to investment in our public services. The strategy of the Conservative party is absolutely clear, and that is why we will not adopt it as a Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask Members to be seated. Let me also say to the Prime Minister that the policy of the Conservative party is nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: Fortunately, the policy of the Conservative party will never be the policy of this Government, but there is a real issue in respect of public services. What is important is that we end up with the investment and reform that our public services need. They are getting substantial investment over the next few years. In each of these areas, there is a substantial reform programme. As I have said, whether it is those who are opposed to reform, or those who are opposed to investment, we will take both of them on and we will win that battle for our public services.

Tony Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow will see the naming of the 2,500 runners in the Queen's jubilee baton relay, which will effectively launch the run-up to the Commonwealth games in Manchester later this year? Will he join me in congratulating those runners, who literally straddle the world? Every one has been picked because of their contribution to local communities. Will he join me in wishing them every success in launching what will be the most successful multi-sports event in this country for many years?

Tony Blair: I certainly join my hon. Friend in his congratulations for all those who are organising the Commonwealth games. The Queen's jubilee baton relay will be launched by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham palace on 11 March 2002, Commonwealth day, from where it will depart on a tour of some 22 Commonwealth countries before returning to the United Kingdom on 6 June. The baton will then tour the length and breadth of the UK for 50 days before arriving in Manchester for the opening by the Queen of the Commonwealth games on 25 July. I believe that the Commonwealth games will be not just a fantastic success story for the north-west but a great showcase for the country.

Chris Grayling: On 19 December at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said about Railtrack:
	"the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 288-9.]
	On three separate occasions since then, the Railtrack administrator has publicly said that that is not the case. Who is telling the truth?

Tony Blair: The petition that was presented to the court announced debts of about £1.7 billion, which is exactly why Railtrack was put into administration. The Railtrack administrator will publish the full details of what the debts were at a later time. When that happens, the hon. Gentleman may have to withdraw the implication of his question.

Phil Sawford: Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Kettering general hospital to look at the new orthopaedic theatre, the new CAT scanner, the £900,000 investment in intensive care and the £1 million plans for a new dermatology unit? Does he agree that, after that massive investment in our health service, the real wreckers are those on the Conservative Benches?

Tony Blair: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend's constituency hospital in Kettering, although preferably not as a patient—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] I think that most of us would like to maintain our good health if we possibly can. What my hon. Friend has described in his constituency could be described in most constituencies up and down the country. There is a massive amount of investment going in. Figures published yesterday on recruitment to the health service show, for example, that we have met the target on the number of nurses in the national health service plan some two years early. I say to my hon. Friends and indeed to Opposition Members that, with the progress over the next few months, I think that people will start to see in their constituencies exactly the same level of investment and change as people already notice in respect of the school system.

Alex Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware that on the day of the Twin Towers disaster, there took place in this city an arms trade fair sponsored by the Ministry of Defence? Among the customers at that fair for state-of-the-art weaponry were both sides in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Would it not be a useful start to the Prime Minister's mission to Africa if he announced that henceforth this country will not sell arms to both sides in African civil wars?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the particular point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I will investigate it and write to him. Our arms sales to Africa run at about 1 per cent. of total arms sales, so it is important to put that in context. There are also, incidentally, jobs and industry in this country to consider. Of course it is important to take care who we sell arms to, and we do. The desire of African nations is for the partnership for change in Africa—which covers a whole range of issues, including aid and trade, investment and governance—to be satisfactorily put together for the G8 summit in July, so that the developing and developed world can give Africa the chance that it needs.

Brian White: The Prime Minister will be aware that, even before the dropping of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, it was one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world. In fulfilling his pledge not to walk away from that country, will he outline what the Government are doing to help clear land mines there?

Tony Blair: We are, I think, providing several million pounds for the clearing of mines in Afghanistan. Part of the function of the international security assistance force is precisely to ensure that we give every help to the Afghan authorities in clearing mines from the area. My hon. Friend would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of progress being made there in very difficult circumstances. On the humanitarian side, although there are still real problems as a result of drought, and some instability in certain parts of the country, the World Food Programme now reckons that it is getting more aid into Afghanistan than ever before.

Points of Order

Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just made—perhaps the Prime Minister would listen to this.

Hon. Members: He's off.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a point of order before us.

Peter Tapsell: Not for the first time, I wish the Prime Minister bon voyage.
	You have just made the interesting and almost theological ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we must in future draw a distinction between the right hon. Gentleman who is now on his way to west Africa in his role as Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman in his role as leader of the Labour party. Are we to understand, then, that in future we may no longer question him when the Government's policies, as so often happens now, diverge from those of the Labour party that was elected to support them?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can always ask questions about the Government's policies. The Prime Minister is here at Prime Minister's Question Time to answer questions regarding his role as Prime Minister, not as leader of the Labour party.

Laurence Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we also take it that in future you will use your sound judgment and prevent the Prime Minister from misrepresenting Conservative party policy when in fact he is being questioned about his Government's policies?

Mr. Speaker: I think that I demonstrated that I was able to tell both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister when they were out of order, and I will continue to do so when necessary.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not another extension of Prime Minister's Question Time.

Chris Grayling: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard me asking the Prime Minister at Question Time about his comments before Christmas. Since—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time to me.

Chris Grayling: I assure you that it is not, Mr. Speaker. I am really asking this question knowing the importance that hon. Members attach to your judgment as a guardian of the interests of the House. When I have asked the Prime Minister, on two separate occasions, through written questions, to substantiate a comment of his that has been contradicted by someone outside the House, and he refuses to do so, what advice can you give me about how to pursue the matter?

Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, keep persevering.

Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In questioning the Prime Minister about the discharge of his duties as Prime Minister, is it proper for the House to question him about what influences may have been brought to bear?

Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. Lady what I said to the Leader of the Opposition: let us see how the questions are framed, and then I will make a ruling on them.

Education Bill (Programme)(No. 3)

Stephen Timms: I beg to move,
	That, notwithstanding the Order of 23rd January (Education Bill (Programme)(No. 2)), at this day's sitting proceedings on consideration of the Education Bill as amended in the Standing Committee (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock and proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
	I am moving this new programme motion with the simple intention of ensuring that there can be an additional two hours of debate on the Education Bill. The Government have consistently offered additional time to debate the Bill, and I am sure that the House will now want to consider the substantial issues raised in the amendments that have been tabled. I hope that we can now move swiftly to debate the Bill, with the benefit of the additional two hours for which the motion provides.

Damian Green: I have no wish to detain the House. We have substantive matters to debate this afternoon and evening. I congratulate the Minister on managing to get the motion on to the Order Paper: that is a refreshing improvement on yesterday's performance.
	I also take this opportunity to withdraw something that I said in the heat of the moment last night, when the Government appeared to be in complete chaos. I said that I could not believe that the Government's problems last night were due to monumental incompetence, and that they were in fact due to some forces of malice. Having received further explanation from Ministers, I now wish to withdraw unreservedly the allegation of competence that I made about the Government, as I now understand that the affair was a complete cock-up.
	It is refreshing that we have got the two extra hours, not least from the perspective of the Bill's progress through the House, in Committee as well as during yesterday's shambles. It may interest the House to know that, in Committee, consideration of clause 11 was not completed. Clause 12 was not debated at all, and neither were clauses 19 to 24, 28 to 38, 41 to 43, 45 to 48 or 63 to 71. There was no debate on schedules 2 to 4 and 7 to 9.
	It is clear that the 44 hours that the Government allowed for consideration in Committee was woefully inadequate for such a serious Bill. Those hon. Members who do not know how serious, important and long lasting the Bill is should read clause 2. That clause gives the Secretary of State—not just this Secretary of State, but her successors as well—the power to suspend clauses from every Education Bill ever passed by the House, including this one. Clause 2 therefore allows the Secretary of State to ignore many of the provisions before us.
	The Bill deserves the full consideration that it has not received. The programme motion is welcome in at least a small way. It is plain from what happened yesterday that the Government wanted to move the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) out of prime time, so that what he had to say could be hidden in the dark recesses of the night. We should be grateful to all those who contributed to yesterday's important debate on the matter for the fact that the Government have signally failed in that intention. We should be grateful to them also for the fact that we are about to have today's important debate—a debate, I should point out again, in which I am on the Government's side. In that context, the Government's actions yesterday to try and suspend debate seem especially perverse.
	Thanks to the efforts through the usual channels and those who contributed to yesterday's debate, we have managed to obtain a small amount of extra time for consideration of the Bill. For that, the House should be grateful.

Paul Tyler: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has said, and in the interests of brevity I shall not repeat it. However, perhaps we should point out to the Government's mismanagers of the House's business that their efforts yesterday were entirely counterproductive.
	I believe that hon. Members from all parties think that this important debate should be in prime time. More attention has been drawn to the matter than would have been the case if the debate had been allowed to proceed last night.
	However, Liberal Democrat Members accept that it was mistake rather than mischief that got us into yesterday's ridiculous position. We are grateful to the Government for listening to our plea last night that additional time should be made available to reinstate the two hours that we lost. I hope that we can now proceed with the debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That, notwithstanding the Order of 23rd January (Education Bill (Programme)(No. 2)), at this day's sitting proceedings on consideration of the Education Bill as amended in the Standing Committee (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock and proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Education Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	No requirements of attendance at a place of religious worship

'(1) It shall not be required, as a condition of a pupil being admitted to a maintained school, that:
	(a) he must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;
	(b) his parents or guardians must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship.
	(c) the pupil, his parent(s) or guardian(s) belong to any particular faith or denomination.
	(2) The local education authority after consultation with the admission forum may by regulation authorise that, notwithstanding (1) a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination.
	(3) Where the local education authority is informed that there are insufficient applications to a particular maintained school to fill the available places, the local education authority may after consultation with the admission forum authorise an increase up to 100 per cent. in the numbers of pupils admitted who are of the particular faith or denomination of the maintained school in question.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Employment etc. of teachers: religious issues—
	'(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 59) is amended as follows.
	(2) Section 58 (Appointment and dismissal of certain teachers at schools with a religious character) shall cease to have effect.
	(3) Section 59 (Staff at community, secular foundation or voluntary, or special school) is amended by leaving out subsection (1) and inserting—
	"(1) This section applies to any maintained school."
	(4) Section 60 (Staff at foundation or voluntary school with a religious character) shall cease to have effect.'.
	New clause 18—No requirements of attendance at a place of religious worship (No. 2)—
	'(1) It shall not be required, as a condition of a pupil being admitted to a maintained school, that:
	(a) he must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;
	(b) his parents or guardians must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;
	(c) the pupil, his parent(s) or guardian(s) belong to a particular faith or denomination.
	(2) The local education authority after consultation with the admission forum may by regulation authorise that, notwithstanding (1) a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination.
	(3) Where the local education authority is informed that there are sufficient applications to a particular maintained school to fill the available places, the local education authority may after consultation with the admission forum authorise an increase up to 100 per cent. in the numbers of pupils admitted who are of the particular faith or denomination of the maintained school in question.
	(4) This section shall only have effect in respect of schools established after the coming into force of this Act.'.
	Amendment No. 78, in clause 208, page 125, line 14, after "206", insert—
	'section (No requirements of attendance at a place of religious worship (No. 2))'.

Frank Dobson: The new clause was tabled in my name and in the names of a large number of hon. Members, including—albeit at the risk of alienating some of my hon. Friends—that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Whatever my differences with the hon. Gentleman on other matters, he has been stalwart in the pursuit of a more inclusive approach by religious organisations and religious schools. I was going to say that he had acted despite his known Christian commitment, but perhaps I should say that he has done so because of it.
	Although I was baptised and confirmed a member of the Church of England, I am a person of no religious belief whatever, but I was brought up by my Anglican mother and my unbeliever father to respect the religious beliefs of everyone.
	The new clause would require all religious schools to admit 25 per cent. of their pupils from families of other faiths or of no faith. That is a measured proposal. New clause 18 would apply that 25 per cent. minimum rule only to new religious schools. It must be recognised that that might be interpreted as discriminating against those religious groups who hope to set up more religious schools—especially the Church of England, with its proposals for 100 extra secondary schools, and people of the Muslim faith and others.
	There may be shortcomings in the drafting of our new clauses such that they would not achieve the intentions of their supporters. Indeed, from my experience, there might even be results that we did not want. However, if there is anything wrong with the drafting, it can easily be corrected in the House of Lords. The Government and their draftsmen are obviously good at making changes: on Report, we are dealing with one Government new clause and no fewer than 43 Government amendments. I am sure that we could get some help from them if necessary.
	Our proposition is supported by members of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. Furthermore, if those members of the Tory party who have spoken to me face to face were telling the truth—I assume that they were—we also have support from people in the Conservative party. Certainly many teachers, parents and members of religious groups support our proposals—as do many children.
	Some of those people would question the very basis of a Church-state relationship in which the taxpayer funds religious schools at all. Money taken from taxpayers of all faiths and of none is handed to various groups who knowingly discriminate against certain children and exclude them on the basis of religion. Those circumstances are unusual. People would agree that if we substituted the words "race" or "colour" for the word "religion", such discrimination would be unacceptable. However, that is a fundamental debate and this is neither the time nor the place to hold it; even if it is the place, it is certainly not the time.
	Our proposals respond to current circumstances in which substantial changes are likely to be made and in which there will be a considerable extension of the number of religious schools promoted by religious groups and encouraged by the Government.
	The impression has been created that there is something special about religious schools. The White Paper refers to their "distinctive ethos and character". If that ethos and character are indeed distinctive, one would want to promote them only if one believed that they were superior. That impression is sometimes created by those who advocate such schools, and it is resented by teachers, parents and older children in many non-religious institutions.
	One does not have to go to a religious school to witness the promotion by dedicated staff of the spiritual, moral, social, and cultural well-being of children. It is frequently provided by staff in non-religious schools—by people with a profound belief in their own religious faiths and by people with none. They manage to provide those things in state schools that have no religious element.
	To justify those remarks I cite Argyle primary school in King's Cross in my constituency, which is one of the most deprived communities in the country. The Ofsted report described that school's contribution to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural well-being of children as "outstanding in all respects". The nearest mixed state secondary school, South Camden community school, which my own children attended, was described as "very good overall" in those respects in the recent Ofsted report—and that is without the benefit of clergy, although the report did not add that.
	The impression is also created that religious schools perform better and get better results. There is no sound evidence for that. If we compare like with like—schools with similar intakes—or if we take differing intakes into account, the performance of schools throughout the country is similar, as has been shown in surveys undertaken not only by liberal and left-wing organisations but by those that are pretty far to the right of the Conservative party. Those surveys show that some religious schools are inclusive and do a brilliant job, some are not inclusive and do a brilliant job, and some are not inclusive and do not do a brilliant job. The same applies, of course, to non-religious schools.
	The problem with religious schools is selection. It is not generally a problem with primary schools. Most of those serve their neighbourhood and are inclusive, whatever their religious nature—very few are selective, and that is how it ought to be. The problem arises with secondary schools. Some religious secondary schools are inclusive, but some are not, and as the law stands all of them can if they wish select children from their religious group only. Inevitably, that means the rejection and exclusion of children from families of other faiths and of no faith. I emphasise the latter as it is important, because more than 40 per cent. of the population of England and Wales subscribe to no organised religious belief. They are just as entitled to send their children to the school of their choice as anyone else.
	That selection inevitably divides communities is undeniable. We live in a society where many people are concerned about the loss of social cohesion. They want to avoid division and exclusion and promote inclusion. It is inevitable that separate schools promote division. They divide the sheep from the goats—us from them and them from us. It is part of the function of establishing high morale within the school. It promotes an exclusive sense, suggesting, "We are great people in this school. We are not like that school down the road." That is part and parcel of almost any school or organisation. There is rivalry between schools, which can sometimes lead to abuse or the odd fight or unpleasant behaviour.
	If we add more and more divisions—on the basis of religion, race, or colour—we will see a geometric, not an arithmetic, progression of such problems.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Frank Dobson: I will not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
	Within the United Kingdom we have had a terrible example of what can happen when most schools in an area are divided on religious grounds: the vile scenes that were seen outside the Holy Cross school in Belfast recently. That behaviour, by those who call themselves loyalists and parade themselves as Protestants, would not have occurred if Protestant children, as well as Catholic children, had gone to the Holy Cross school. I am not suggesting that the situation anywhere in England and Wales is as bad that, and I do not want it to be as bad as that in the future, but there are conurbations where divisions will increase if something is not done to make Church and religious schools more inclusive, or to restrain their spread.
	I would be the last person to suggest that social divisions in our cities and conurbations—or in our rural areas, for that matter—are simply the product of the schooling system. That would be absurd. They are clearly to do with housing and employment, but hon. Members on both sides of the House are working to reduce those divisions. The Government have an effective social exclusion unit, which is there to promote integration. If the Government machine is moving in one direction with the policies on housing, jobs, training, and regeneration, it would appear that education is the cuckoo in the nest, moving in the opposite direction.
	It is said that everyone wants schools to be inclusive; indeed the Government's Green Paper says:
	"We will support inclusive faith schools".
	The briefing kindly provided to the parliamentary Labour party says that the Government's
	"hope is that all faith schools should adopt more inclusive admission policies."
	I share the Government's hope, and the Bill is their hope made flesh. The Archbishop of Canterbury, no less, also supports that view. He was reported as saying that Church schools
	"should include some children of other faiths and of no particular faith, as well as . . . of Christian families."
	I support that and share his view, which is why we are introducing these proposals. We propose a national minimum of 25 per cent.

John Burnett: The Church of England briefing that I have seen makes it clear that it does not want such a percentage foisted on it by central diktat.

Frank Dobson: Well, I was about to come on to that very point. My next note says, "Objections—central diktat." So I commend the hon. Gentleman on following the impeccable logic of my speech, but the concept of central direction would probably not be recognised as wholly alien to the education policies that have been pursued by the Labour Government, whom I strongly support, since 1997, and I want to assist in that process.
	There is also an objection to quotas, but the Church of England's own document, which set in train its proposals for 100 new schools, says:
	"This could be achieved either through catchment or quota".
	It then adds—I do not like misleading people—
	"as appropriate to local circumstances."
	Once again, I agree. We propose a national minimum. Perhaps, in certain circumstances, that national minimum might not be met, and we try our best in our humble new clause to allow for a derogation from the minimum if it cannot be reached for practical reasons.
	Our proposals would widen parental choice. They would give every parent in every area the opportunity to apply to every school, with the chance of their children getting into every school.

Patrick McLoughlin: I went to a Catholic primary school and a Catholic secondary school. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question on his 25 per cent. limit. If someone outside a three-mile area decided that their child should go to a Church of England school or a Catholic school that was more than three miles away from that person, although they did not profess the faith of that faith school, would they qualify for free school transport as they currently do?

Frank Dobson: It is my understanding that if someone of a particular religious faith wants to send their child to a school of that faith and they live sufficiently far away, they are entitled to free school transport. In fairness—I believe in equality—that would also apply the other way: at least I hope it would.
	The problem with the existence of religious schools is that children get rejected because their parents are not of the appropriate faith. That means that those people are not allowed to exercise their choice—the school does the choosing.

Claire Ward: rose—

Helen Jones: rose—

Frank Dobson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones).

Helen Jones: Is not the real problem with my right hon. Friend's new clause—particularly in relation to Catholic schools, which are largely socially inclusive because of their wide catchment areas—that it would create a situation in which 25 per cent. of pupils were being accepted into school on grounds other than their faith? That would create a situation in which those schools became more socially exclusive, not less, because the people who would know how to work the system would be the clued-up parents who understood it.

Frank Dobson: In those areas in which there are many Roman Catholics, that process already applies even to the Roman Catholics, because the clued-up parents get their children into the Roman Catholic schools that they regard as better than some of the other Roman Catholic schools. The proposition applies to everyone; the new clause would not introduce a novel problem.
	The Church of England is proposing to have an additional 100 new secondary schools. Its report makes it clear that that will not be in response to the increase in the number of children. The majority of the new schools will result from existing community schools being taken over. Let us consider the example of a town or neighbourhood in which there are currently two non-religious community schools. All the parents in that area can choose to send their children to one or other of those schools. If one of them becomes a religious foundation, the religious foundation will start turning some children away, and people who are not of the particular faith may have only one option. They will be able to send their child only to the remaining non-religious school. That will reduce choice.

Angela Watkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: I should make progress.
	A further problem arises from the existence of religious schools and specialist schools. The concept of the specialist religious school is irreconcilable with the concept of parental choice. Let us suppose that a Roman Catholic school becomes a specialist language school, or a Muslim school becomes a specialist mathematics school, or a Church of England school becomes a specialist IT school. Unless people are of the appropriate faith, the new specialist school will not be available to them.

Caroline Flint: On the issue of specialist schools, McAuley Catholic comprehensive school in my constituency has just been awarded specialist status in performing arts and design. My understanding is that part of what specialist schools do is to offer a specialism to the wider community. Specialist status is about a community of schools working together to make the most of their assets by sharing them more effectively across the board. Is that not different from the old grant-maintained days when the school community was divided? Specialist status is about diversity, but within a community of schools.

Frank Dobson: There is something in what my hon. Friend says, but not everything. If someone wants to specialise in whatever is offered by the specialist religious school, the best place to do it is in the school that specialises. The impact on the surrounding area in terms of that specialism is diluted the further away one is from the core school offering such provision.

Lorna Fitzsimons: My right hon. Friend knows that we share a common position on some things. Indeed, I was proud to associate to myself with his intervention regarding Islamophobia when we debated the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. However, I have two concerns about the new clause. First, for Muslims in my constituency, this is the first time they have stood a chance of getting anywhere near parity, and they see the introduction of quotas as discriminatory. Secondly, is it not naive to believe that just because children of different faiths or different colours are in the same school they will integrate? According to the three reports, the problem was the lack of integration in most non-religious state schools in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford.

Frank Dobson: I believe in equality between religions. The new clause would apply either to all existing and future religious schools or just to future religious schools. People of the Muslim faith might believe that the latter application discriminates against them, and there may be something in that. However, the suggestion that one religion feels a bit upset about the proposal does not mean that we should desist from implementing it.
	The Government Chief Whip sent a letter from the Muslim Council of Britain, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to a number of hon. Members. Sadly, she did not send it to me, although it mentions my new clause. The council opposes my proposal. I think that the Secretary of State will say that the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and other groups oppose it, but we have known that all along. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) has advanced the discussion.

Andrew Turner: What about the hon. Lady's second point—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Frank Dobson: I am making my speech.
	The next objection is that the new clause might mean that children have to be bussed in. Let us suppose that a non-religious school in a particular locality serves the whole neighbourhood. If it becomes a religious school and uses the current admissions policy, it can reject children who live nearby who are not of the appropriate religious faith. So children living nearby would have to be bussed to schools elsewhere that will admit them and, as they travel out of their neighbourhood, they will pass vehicles coming in the other direction bringing religious children to the school in their area. I do not believe that that is a valid objection.

Angela Watkinson: rose—

Frank Dobson: Another objection to the amendment is that it sets aside a long-standing arrangement between Church and state. As the parliamentary Labour party briefing said:
	"The effect of this amendment would be to tear up the historic concordat between the state and church that was the foundation of the 1944 Education Act."
	That concordat was not set in tablets of stone. It must be as susceptible to change as any other part of the 1944 Act and the settlement. The House has passed no fewer than 42 Education Bills since 1944, many of which amended either the 1944 Act or subsequent Acts. We cannot say that that arrangement is sacrosanct and can never be changed.

Claire Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those Acts were introduced after a consultation process that involved many of the organisations and parties that would be affected by the proposed changes? In the case of the new clause, however, the very organisations that would be most affected and, indeed, the parents who would wish to send their children to faith schools have not been consulted. They have found out about the proposal through the media and have had little opportunity to make representations to their Member of Parliament or to have a view on the proposed change. That is not consultation with the organisations that count.

Frank Dobson: I take my hon. Friend back to the start of my speech, when I pointed out that we are not proposing to initiate something but responding to initiatives by others. There has been considerable consultation by the Government and the Church of England. Not all the responses in any way favoured further extension of religious schools.

Jon Owen Jones: I am sorry to disturb the flow of my right hon. Friend's speech, but I should like to respond to the mention of the historic settlement and the lack of consultation. I am not sure how many Members know that the historic settlement of 1944 set up state sponsorship of faith schools, but based on a 50 per cent. state contribution. Since then, the faith contribution has fallen—and it is now proposed that it be 10 per cent. I do not believe that the general taxpayer has been consulted on that.

Frank Dobson: I admire my hon. Friend's logic, because that was the very next point that I was going to make. The 50:50 split between the Churches and the taxpayer was not set in tablets of stone, and it is now proposed that the split be 90:10, which is a very large difference—a huge amount of extra investment. It has quite rightly been part of the Government's rubric that extra money must be matched by reform. I am proposing the reforms to match the extra funding.
	In addition, I do not think that anybody envisaged in 1944 that the Church of England would propose a 25 per cent. increase in the number of its secondary schools, but that is what is being considered. The policy has been entered into without looking at the wider considerations.
	Criticisms of our proposals appear to boil down to two: first, that they are an unwarranted, draconian interference, which would cause huge problems and a major upheaval; and secondly, that they are wholly unnecessary because religious schools are already doing what we propose. One or other of those propositions might be true, but both cannot be, and as it happens, I think that they are both wrong.

Angela Watkinson: I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way to me. Does he acknowledge that denominational schools throughout the country are highly successful because of the shared ethos between parents, the school and pupils, and that as a result they are heavily over-subscribed and are already rejecting large numbers of applicants from their own faiths? Demand is the reason for their success. Perhaps in the past they have had a higher proportion of non-denominational children, but as their success has increased, so has the number of pupils from their respective faiths. How can he justify rejecting even larger proportions of applicants from the respective faiths?

Frank Dobson: The Church of England's proposition is rather like a hydraulic system. It would argue, I think, that it wants 100 extra schools and that those 100 extra schools could take up any displacement that results from the proposals. But in any case, there are plenty of over-subscribed non-religious schools. The situation applies across the board.
	The problem is that although most religious schools try to play the game and be inclusive—as I have said, nearly all primary schools do so and quite a number of secondary schools do so too—the ones that do not bring the whole system into disrepute. The ones that are already inclusive would not be much affected by our proposition, and the others would be brought up to scratch.

Andrew Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I really must get on.
	It is clear that no one has been very good at bringing such schools up to scratch until now. If all the faiths are saying that they want schools to be inclusive and some schools still are not, clearly there is not the machinery in the faith arrangements for them to do what their diocesan boards and the Muslim equivalents would like them to do. All we are proposing is a national minimum; introducing it should be a function of central Government.
	Public opinion is on the side of my proposal. I do not attach much importance to opinion polls; I never have and I never will. However, a recent MORI poll showed a 2:1 majority against expanding faith schools; a 4:1 majority believed that it was right to require them to take in children from other faiths. I have listened to children's views as well. As I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can confirm, the Department for Education and Skills conducted, with Save the Children, a consultation on the proposal. Three quarters of the children who took part in that official consultation, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) was asking, thought that faith schools were not a good idea. One said:
	"If you separate everybody, then pupils can't mix together and then racism can happen more often."
	There were further comments like that.
	I commend my proposals to my right hon. Friend. They have two advantages from a political point of view; they are popular and right, a combination which is not always available to us. My right hon. Friend is a friend, she is honourable, but in this case, I am afraid that she is not right: she is wrong. I urge her to accept our proposal. There may be better ways of introducing of it, and we are happy with that. There should be a minimum of 25 per cent., preferably for all faith schools, not just new ones, which would reduce the divisions in our society.
	I return again to my right hon. Friend's briefing, which says:
	"A more effective way to tackle segregation is to encourage children from different communities to meet and engage with each other."
	The place where children can best do so is school, and we should promote that. Members sometimes ask in the House, "What will people think in future about we are doing today?" I am not usually in a portentous mode, and try to avoid that sort of thing. However, I will adopt that mode now because if we do not work today—not tomorrow, not in 10 years' time—to counter division and exclusion, we may promote a ghastly society with groups at one another's throats; it would be like "A Clockwork Orange", "Blade Runner" and racism all thrown together, which is an awful thought.
	I have now reached an age at which my greatest concern is my grandchildren and the society in which they will grow up. I want them to grow up in a society in which all the groups of our diverse population are at ease with themselves and one another. I want a society with an education system where every child is treasured; where every child learns to value diversity and to respect others; where children can understand the variety of contributions that they all make to our culture and welfare, and understand that they all share in both the potential and the frailty of the human condition. They will learn that best not just by studying the theory, but from day-to-day practical experience with their classmates in their classroom, which is why I have tabled my new clause.

Damian Green: We have just heard a sincere and passionate speech from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, the House knows, holds strong views. But for all his sincerity and passion, he is wrong. He and his Liberal Democrat allies would make education in this country less diverse and worse if they had their way.
	I shall turn to the detail of the new clause in a moment.
	It is worth making the case for faith schools, which have suffered so much unfair denigration as the issue has been debated over the past few months. I should perhaps declare an interest, as I was educated at a Catholic primary school in Wales, in a small town which, as a port, saw a good deal of immigration, had very mixed communities and suffered absolutely no sign of racial or religious tension. I observed from my own experience that being educated at a Catholic school did not cut anyone off from the wider community.
	The right hon. Gentleman made something of the problems in Northern Ireland—the terrible problems surrounding the Holy Cross school. I merely observe that they clearly stem from the wider tensions in Northern Ireland, and that in a normal society, religious schools are a normal part of life.
	Apart from my own experience, my support for Church schools is based on the simple, pragmatic observation that the Church school is very often the good school. For many families, in our inner cities particularly, by far the best chance to obtain a top-class education for their children is the local Church school. The right hon. Gentleman may not have had time to read all of yesterday's report by Ofsted on the latest standards and quality of education, on which the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman and the House should know that the Church schools whose ethos he seeks to destroy through new clause 1 performed outstandingly well, according to the chief inspector.
	The report lists what it calls particularly successful schools. Of the 210 schools so identified, 82 are Church schools—more than a third. Given that roughly a quarter of schools are Church schools, the right hon. Gentleman will see that they score disproportionately well.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman think, or does the Ofsted report suggest, that the achievement of those schools was due to religion or to admissions policy?

Damian Green: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I propose to deal later in my speech with admissions policy and the effects of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his supporters on it.

David Laws: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just told the House, would he withdraw his support from faith schools if new information that showed that their performance was not as good as that of other schools became available? Is that the sole criterion that he brings to the debate?

Damian Green: It is not the sole criterion, but it seems reasonable to introduce into the debate the latest evidence. If Ofsted finds that existing Church schools are doing well, it seems a relevant criterion, which the hon. Gentleman may wish to bear in mind while he considers the evidence. I should say that the figures that I gave were for primary schools. For secondary schools, Ofsted identified 90 particularly successful schools, of which 17 are Church schools, so across the board, the Church schools are doing well.

David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
	The positive way to deal with the matter is to build on the success of Church schools. The negative way—the way taken by those who tabled the new clauses—is to destroy their ethos. The reason for the existence of many of those schools in our inner cities is closely linked to the history of the Churches in catering for poorer communities and giving them the first leg up the ladder.
	I shall concentrate for a moment on the 1,500 Catholic schools, one of which I attended. It is timely for hon. Members of all parties to remember that they were initially set up to provide an education for a mainly underprivileged class, largely of immigrants, who at the time were suffering racism. One hundred and fifty years after those Catholic schools were set up as a priority, we live in a society where, by and large, Catholics are well educated and play an important and successful role in society. That is a success story emanating from the commitment of the bishops and church congregations of the day, and it is continued now by the Catholic Church and other Churches, which rightly attach such importance to education. We achieved that healthier position by providing distinctive education for faith development as well as for other educational needs. That is what other newly arrived groups in our society, including the Muslim community, now seek for themselves.

Jon Owen Jones: On the success of the Catholic community after immigration and up to the present day, would the hon. Gentleman care to compare the success of the Catholic community in Britain with that of the community in France, or even the United States, which is perhaps a better example? Both countries ensure that there is a division between state and religion. They have no state-sponsored religious schools, but that hinders neither the Catholic population nor, apparently, any other people.

Damian Green: First, the Bill applies to this country, so although the hon. Gentleman raises a fascinating subject, it is not germane to the new clause. Secondly, France was an explicitly Catholic country and became explicitly republican, so it is bizarre to attempt to compare the state of religion there with that of religion in the United Kingdom, as the circumstances are completely different. Of course, the United States was founded as an explicitly secular society in which Catholics form a small minority. Thus, I do not regard the example as especially relevant, even though I am tempted to do so.
	It is relevant, however, to draw an analogy in respect of communities that came here in previous centuries and have, through education, come to play a constructive role in the mainstream of society, and deal with the debate to which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) referred: the perceived problems of Muslim communities and schools in this country. I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House who hold strong views about Muslim schools to visit one. I remind them that there are very few maintained Muslim schools in this country; I think that there are four.

Ann Cryer: My constituency has one or two schools that are largely Muslim but not Muslim in character. I am worried that, if we start to establish more Muslim schools, they will almost certainly be girls' schools. That is certainly the case in the Bradford area. We will almost certainly not have any boys' schools, because that is the way things are going. I feel that a school should be a microcosm of society and that we are going to fail the children in that respect.

Damian Green: It is not obvious to me that every school should be a microcosm of the whole of society, as that way lies a complete absence of the diversity that I suspect all hon. Members want in our education system. However, I agree that all schools should transmit the values and ethos of our society. They should pass on those values, including tolerance, respect for diversity and knowledge of our history. That should be—and is—the responsibility of schools, whether they are secular or religious in character. I suspect that the proposition that that should be the basis of education policy will be widely agreed across the Floor of the House.
	Let me return to the subject of existing Muslim schools. I recently visited such a school in London. If hon. Members visit it, they will see well-behaved and well-educated children learning the national curriculum with the same textbooks as in any other school. They will see a school that produces rounded children who leave the school gates every day and live in the same world as everyone else in that part of north London. The school itself makes the point that 23 different nationalities are represented among the children's families and that its aim is to produce Muslim children who are British. Those of us who went to schools that produce Catholic or Jewish children who are British should recognise that that is an honourable aim.

Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman will have read the Cantle report. How will additional faith schools promote inclusion and bind communities together when, in respect of northern cities such as Bradford, Burnley and Oldham, we are told by Cantle, Lord Ouseley and all the other people who have considered them that there is a growth of parallel communities that are distinguished on the grounds of race and religion? Should we not address that issue?

Damian Green: Any good school prepares its pupils for life.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: I suspect that I know what the hon. Lady will say. I want her to say it because I believe that she will mention her constituency experience, so I shall give way shortly.
	Any good school that prepares its pupils for life will enable them to integrate and be successful members of society. People who feel excluded from wider society because they believe that the education system has failed them are often alienated and fall into divisive ways. I suspect that hon. Members are not divided about the matter. Religious schools do not promote division; if they are good schools, their pupils will successfully integrate into society.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the three areas about which reports were produced, the minority of schools are religious? The problem is lack of integration in the state sector, in comprehensive schools where the pupils are 100 per cent. of one denomination, or in those that have a mixture of pupils who do not integrate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is more integration in some of our Catholic schools because they take more immigrants, especially asylum seekers from Africa who are Catholics? There is therefore a better balance of race in some of our Catholic schools.

Damian Green: I agree with the hon. Lady, who makes the case eloquently and on the basis of experience. However, some reports talk glibly about problems in northern cities and claim that they are due to Muslim schools. Most of the places where the terrible riots happened do not have maintained Muslim schools. It is therefore wrong to suggest that there is a link; it is a bad argument for those who support the new clause to use.

Simon Hughes: As someone who was educated in faith-based schools and chairs the governing body of such a school, I know that the hon. Gentleman's argument about ethos is fundamentally flawed. Some Church schools have 100 per cent. Church admission; others admit 25 per cent. or more pupils who are not Church members. Schools with 25 per cent. of pupils who are not Christian are no less Church of England or Roman Catholic than schools with 100 per cent. Church admission. The argument that the modest proposal of giving a quarter of places to pupils of another denomination or faith would undermine a school's ethos has no basis in fact. It is an insult to the many faith-based schools that already do that, with no detriment to their ethos.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about admissions, with which I shall deal shortly. However, I want to finish my comments on Muslim schools.
	Like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I received a letter from the Muslim Council of Britain. Mine came direct rather than through the Government Chief Whip. Its contents are interesting. It states:
	"The Muslim community agrees that both existing and new faith schools must be inclusive whilst contributing their unique character and ethos to the state system. We also agree with the principle that faith schools should be established where there is support from local communities . . .
	The Muslim Council of Britain believes it is right that faith schools deliver an inclusive national curriculum and work in close partnership with other maintained schools to build greater understanding between different religious communities."
	That is not an easy task, but it is heartening and sensible that the Muslim Council of Britain has set itself that aim. It should be the goal of every school, religious or secular.
	This country has a rigorous inspection regime because all of us, as part of wider society, have the right to know what goes on inside every school. If there is evidence that schools are falling below an acceptable standard, whether in general education or through anything to do with their religious background, remedial measures should be swift and effective.
	We value diversity in education. Conservative Members believe that parents know better than politicians what is good for their children. That is a fundamental divide between most Conservative Members and Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. They believe that they know best; we believe that parents know best.

Lynne Jones: I speak as the parent of a child who attends a school with an intake of approximately 90 per cent. Muslim children. If that school became a Muslim school and did not show a willingness to take non-Muslims, my child would be prevented from attending it. That is already the case with the nearest school to where we live; it is a Catholic school, which my child is excluded from attending. How is the new clause going to prevent schools from becoming as inclusive as the Muslim Council and other faith-based organisations say that they want them to be? Why should schools exclude children such as mine?

Damian Green: Let me move on to admissions, which hon. Members who are in favour of the new clause go on about. I admired the way in which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras presented this as a modest proposal. He was no doubt hoping that most people would not have read new clauses 1 or 18. We should be clear what new clause 1 would do. It would not simply affect new Church schools but violently change the ethos of more than 6,000 mainly successful schools that are already operating. The coalition that signed up to this proposal wants to take the power to tell thousands of schools how they should run their admissions policy, and thinks that it has the right to tell those successful schools to tear up policies that have worked for many years. That is arrogance of the worst kind.
	I refer hon. Members to the details of new clause 1. Even in its own terms, it is peculiar. Subsection (1) sets out what I assume to be the right hon. Gentleman's ideal case: a 0 per cent. target for religious admissions. Subsection (2) amends that target to between 20 and 75 per cent.—both completely arbitrary figures, so far as I can see. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would explain why he had chosen those two numbers, but he failed to do so. Subsection (3) throws in the towel altogether and states that a school can have 100 per cent. religious admissions, but only if it cannot fill its places.
	Let us be clear about the effect of new clause 1. All those who ask how this would affect admissions should consider this. If a school is unpopular, it can become faith-based. If a school is popular, perhaps because it is faith-based, it will have to have the very reason for its popularity taken away. Frankly, I fail to see how that would improve education. In fact, I suspect that unpopular schools—perhaps those whose rolls are falling because the population in the area is falling—would be the most vulnerable to what the supporters of the new clause are most worried about: being taken over by a religious sect that would try to do something with them of which those hon. Members would disapprove. But those are precisely the schools that the new clause would make most likely to go that way. Even in its own terms, the new clause is therefore defective. If I were against Church schools, I would think that this was a peculiar way to proceed.

David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the popular schools are over-subscribed because of the quality of the religion or because of their results? Will he tell us how many schools he thinks there are in the country that perform poorly but are over-subscribed entirely because of their religion?

Damian Green: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not profess to know why millions of parents around the country choose the schools that they do. More to the point, nor do I seek to dictate their choice. That is the fundamental difference between us. Neither I nor the Secretary of State nor anyone else in the House has the wisdom to dictate to parents what type of school they should send their children to. Sadly, the supporters of the new clause think that they have that wisdom; I think that they are wrong.

Glenda Jackson: rose—

Frank Dobson: rose—

Damian Green: I shall give way to the hon. Lady first.

Glenda Jackson: In effect, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to dictate to parents where they can send their children to school. He is arguing that if a child lived next door to a Catholic, Church of England or Muslim school, but did not practise any of those religions—indeed, they might be an agnostic or an atheist—that child should be denied access to such a school. He is, in effect, dictating to parents.

Damian Green: indicated dissent

Glenda Jackson: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is exactly what he is doing.

Damian Green: That is precisely not what I am doing. If I were tabling a new clause that stated that every faith-based school had to take 100 per cent. of its children from its own particular faith, the hon. Lady would have a good point. As it is, I am not suggesting anything of the kind. It is she and those on her side in this debate who are trying to dictate to parents. I am saying that parents should have choice and that schools should have choice.
	The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says that Church of England schools and schools of all faiths wish to choose that option, but I say that he should not be allowed to dictate to them. He said that a passage in his speech dealt with central diktats, but he did not deal with them. Of course he is trying to put forward central diktats. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) and her hon. Friends are trying to dictate to parents, not those of us on this side of the argument.

Kerry Pollard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Catholic hierarchy in this country advises its schools that up to 10 per cent. of their intake should consist of children of other faiths or no faith at all?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is right, and his point shoots a hole in the argument made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate.

Glenda Jackson: I was arguing not about the Catholic hierarchy, but with the hon. Gentleman's argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was attempting to dictate to parents. My point, which I proved, is that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to dictate to parents by denying children who live close to a faith-based school but do not practise its religion access to it.

Damian Green: Let me make the point simply for the hon. Lady. If, as the Catholic hierarchy says, 10 per cent. of the children should come from outside that faith, a child who lives next door to such a school has the chance to attend it. I am not seeking to dictate the ethos of such a school, but the hon. Lady is.
	In essence, new clause 18, which is a soft-cop option, says, "We oppose this on principle, but we will start by standing still." Anyone who believes that there would be no further attempts to damage existing Church schools if new clause 18 were accepted is deluding himself. That would be only the first step—

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Green: No, I have given way enough.
	Such a first step would prove seriously unpopular with recently arrived groups, which would observe that not all religions were treated fairly in this country. Rather than easing tensions between such groups, it would make them worse. There is a very dangerous intent behind new clause 18.

Claire Ward: rose—

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Damian Green: I have given way enough and other hon. Members want to speak.
	The worst argument for these changes was advanced by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, although the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate also believes in it strongly. The right hon. Gentleman said that parents do not choose such schools, but that the schools, because they are so popular, choose the parents. Let us unpick that argument and see what it means.
	There are a certain number of places in such schools, but parents want more, so there are more applications than places. Some of us say that, if there are more applicants than places, perhaps there should be more places to meet the demand. That is a basic democratic demand. Others, such as the right hon. Gentleman, say, "No, selection is so evil that we must eliminate all the places in such schools, so that no one is happy." That is old-fashioned equality of misery—[Interruption.] I am delighted to discover, from the noises to my left, that the Liberal Democrats have finally turned into the Labour party circa 1975.
	My final message is to the Secretary of State, who will know that the Prime Minister is firmly against the new clause. I take this rare opportunity to agree with the Prime Minister, and I hope and expect that the Secretary of State will have the courage of the Prime Minister's convictions. The new clauses would not improve the education of a single child. On the contrary, they would put at risk the good work done day after day in thousands of schools that serve more than 1 million children. The new clauses are ill-conceived and could be hugely damaging. I hope that the Government and the House reject them.

Paul Goggins: I begin by honouring the integrity and solid values of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It will soon become clear to the House that he and I fundamentally disagree on this issue, but, however we divide on it, I remain united with him in the aspiration to avoid at all costs the spectre of a society fundamentally divided. His is an honest and honourable view that is evidently shared by at least a sizeable minority of Members of Parliament, who question the role played by faith-based and denominational schools in our society. Some, indeed, would argue that such schools should have no place whatever in our society. That is not my view, but I acknowledge that it is the view of some. I suspect that it is not always a view that they have tested thoroughly with their electorates, although again I except my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who I am sure is always forthright with his electorate on such issues.
	I respect Members' right to hold that opinion and to argue for it. I hope that they, in turn, will accept that any proposal to alter the position of faith schools fundamentally should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) has said, be considered seriously in Parliament only when that proposal has been made widely known, and after the fullest possible consultation. It should not, surely, be contained in a new clause tabled a mere 10 days before Report, which effectively tears up a 60-year agreement between Churches and state that has been honoured by all Governments and is, I believe—irrespective of the MORI poll—still widely supported by the people.

Jon Owen Jones: When my hon. Friend speaks of a minority who may support my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he may be under a misapprehension. Does he not realise that a Whip is being exercised by the two largest parties, preventing any true expression of the genuine view of the majority?

Paul Goggins: I hear what my hon. Friend says—

John Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Goggins: I would rather answer my hon. Friend first.
	I know how many Members have supported the new clause, and I believe them to constitute a minority, albeit a sizeable one.

Malcolm Savidge: My hon. Friend said that any significant change should happen only after proper consultation. Does he agree that it would be wrong to talk of greatly increasing the number of religiously segregated schools without such consultation?

Paul Goggins: I note what my hon. Friend says, but the Bill does not include that proposal.
	I am pleased that many faith schools, especially in our main urban centres, contain a wide social and ethnic mix of pupils. An average of 20 per cent. of pupils in Roman Catholic schools throughout the country are not Roman Catholic. I believe, nevertheless, that it would be a huge mistake to enshrine in law a fixed quota for all faith and denominational schools. In practice, it would mean Jewish children being turned away from Jewish schools, Catholic children being turned away from Catholic schools, and Church of England children being turned away from Church of England schools.
	I also believe that the new clause would place a huge bureaucratic burden on local authorities and schools that would have to work out the new procedures. That would detract from the important task of putting as many resources as possible into raising standards in all schools.

Claire Ward: I remind my hon. Friend that we have consulted on increasing the number of faith schools. The issue was contained in the manifesto on which every Labour Member stood in 2001.

Paul Goggins: That is certainly an important point.

David Chaytor: The new clause does not in any way contravene the content of the manifesto. It does not deny the possibility of increasing the number of faith schools; it simply proposes a change in the admissions policy of all faith schools.

Paul Goggins: I agree. The fact remains that the new clause could in practice deny parents the right to send their children to the school of their choice because of the 75 per cent. maximum quota. That would utterly change the relationship between Church and state in regard to education. That point of principle has not been put to the British people. It should be put properly and consulted on properly before any decision is taken in Parliament.

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend's answer did not relate to my intervention. I said that the manifesto on which we fought the election allowed for an increase in the number of faith schools and that nothing in new clause 1 prevents an increase in their number.

Paul Goggins: I will try to say briefly exactly what I said before. We did not put in the manifesto, and we have not consulted on, a proposal to introduce a fundamental change in the relationship between Church and state, which new clause 1 would bring about. That would need to be consulted on fully and it has not been.
	It is important to point out that the Bill does not contain any powers to compel faith communities to establish new faith or denominational schools, which would be wrong and impractical. Having said that, I applaud the Government for their action to ensure a level playing between minority faith communities and the other faith communities that I have mentioned, such as the Catholic, Jewish and Church of England communities, which have a long-established tradition of running their own schools. Many minority faith communities already run their own schools in the independent sector. It would be far better if they were in the maintained sector, where they would be required to follow the national curriculum, employ properly qualified teachers and be rigorous in relation to standards of teaching and results.
	In the main, parents and children choose faith schools for two reasons. The first is that they wish to ensure that the faith and values that are supported at home are reflected in the teaching, organisation and ethos of the school. That long-standing and legitimate choice would be undermined by the new clause. The second reason, which has been touched on by several hon. Members, is that on the whole faith schools perform well in terms of standards and examination results.

Ashok Kumar: Can my hon. Friend point to an analytical scientific study that demonstrates with ample evidence that faith schools achieve better results than other schools?

Paul Goggins: I am happy to give my hon. Friend evidence of that. There is a separate question: why do faith schools perform better in terms of standards and examination results? I do not make any simplistic assertion. The reasons why faith schools perform better are extremely complex, but the Ofsted report is clear. Last year, the number of pupils who achieved five or more A to C grades at GCSE in Church schools was 7.5 per cent. higher than in schools across the piece. That is the factual evidence that I bring to my hon. Friend's attention.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Goggins: May I continue?
	At key stage 2, results in maths and English were on average 7 per cent. better in Church schools than in other schools. That is clear factual evidence. There are several complex reasons as to why that is the case. I believe that it is explained partly by ethos: parents' values and the school's values complement each other. None the less the facts speak for themselves.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford).

Clive Efford: Is my hon. Friend saying that at the faith schools whose results he has cited, entrance is fully comprehensive and absolutely no selection takes place?

Paul Goggins: I admit freely that this is a much more complex issue than—[Interruption.] I am saying that I fully agree that the reasons why faith schools perform better are complex; one cannot say just that it is because they are faith schools. None the less, the facts speak for themselves: faith schools' results are more impressive than the average.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

Paul Goggins: No. We have a relatively short time for debate and I am sure that many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
	People choose faith schools because they complement their own faith and values and because they tend to do rather well. I acknowledge that it is unacceptable for parents who simply want to access a higher quality of education to claim falsely that they adhere to a faith or denomination.

Ann Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Paul Goggins: No.
	It is understandable when parents do that, but not acceptable. That is why the Government's drive to ensure that high-quality education is available in all schools is so important, so that in academic terms all parents can be happy to send their children to any school. That aspiration can unite all Labour Members, and that—rather than removing the traditional right to attend faith-based schools—is the answer to the abuse of the system.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the infinitely higher standards at faith-based schools. Is he really arguing that the boards of governors of faith-based schools would deny the opportunity of that quality of education to 20 per cent. of their intake because they did not share that faith? I have to be honest: that strikes me as a somewhat irreligious approach to our children.

Paul Goggins: I made the point clearly that, on average, in Roman Catholic schools, for example, 20 per cent. of the children attending are not Catholics. In practice, many religious schools are far more inclusive than some hon. Members have suggested today.

Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Goggins: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to continue with my next point.
	One argument for quotas that is urged by supporters of the new clause is that quotas would lead to greater inclusion and integration in places such as Oldham and Bradford. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that. I acknowledge that we need policies to promote inclusion in all our towns and cities, but desirable—indeed, crucial—as those aims are, they would not be delivered by a restriction on school admissions. In practice, it would be a recipe for disaster. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, I believe that it would mean bussing children in and out of communities, which would do absolutely nothing for social cohesion.
	All faith schools—all schools—should demonstrate a practical commitment to inclusion, but that should be done by local agreement, not central determination and diktat. I welcome the fact that the Government are to issue new guidelines to school organisation committees to promote greater inclusion.
	A further argument urged by supporters of the new clause is that faith promotes bigotry. They pray in aid, of course, the example of Holy Cross school in Belfast. Along with all Members of the House, I am sure, I condemn the bigots, but it is disingenuous to say that, because of such episodes, all faith schools promote bigotry and should have their position undermined. I do not accept that faith is the enemy of inclusion. Indeed, in my experience some of the best faith schools are outward rather than inward looking, and help their pupils to engage with and understand the wider world around them.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very often when faith schools can show how religious teaching promotes tolerance, which the scriptures of all the great faiths do, that they can help to challenge the intolerance that people sometimes associate with their faith, because of associated sects and so on? We have seen that in the Muslim and other communities.

Paul Goggins: I believe that to be entirely correct. The challenging of intolerance is not necessarily confined to faith-based schools, but it is something that such schools can do.

Valerie Davey: I taught religious education in a state school, and I know that one can teach inclusion. However, it is difficult for young people to believe in inclusion when it is taught in a school that is exclusive.

Paul Goggins: I hope it is apparent from my remarks that I do not believe that schools should be exclusive in that way. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff, but I am arguing strongly for schools to be inclusive. However, I also argue that a school's admissions policy and the way in which it organises inclusiveness should be left to that school. Such matters should not be determined in this Chamber, by this House of Parliament, with the results handed down to all schools in all circumstances.

Geraint Davies: On that point, would my hon. Friend prefer the new generation of faith schools to be voluntary controlled rather than voluntary aided?

Paul Goggins: I apologise, but I missed the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

Geraint Davies: We are about to have a new generation of faith schools. Voluntary controlled faith schools have a more open admissions policy, and are supported by the Anglican Church. Would my hon. Friend prefer them to voluntary aided schools, 100 per cent. of whose pupils are of one faith?

Paul Goggins: I want plans and policies to be worked out locally to suit the circumstances of local communities. Faith communities and secular authorities should be involved in the discussions about developing schools and frameworks for education that reflect the needs and aspirations of local communities. We cannot produce such schools by laying down frameworks and quotas in legislation, as that approach would mean that there was no flexibility at local level.
	I am determined to finish with no more interventions, and I shall only take a few seconds. I repeat: all schools should, of course, be required to demonstrate a clear commitment to inclusion. However, that cannot be achieved by introducing a quota on admissions that effectively would deny many parents what is a legitimate choice for their children—an education in a faith-based or denominational school.

Phil Willis: First, I am delighted that we are having this debate. The quality of some of the contributions so far has demonstrated the need for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for taking up the new clause, and for the measured way in which he introduced the arguments in favour of it.
	There are divisions among hon. Members of all parties on this matter, which people approach from different points of view. However, whenever a difficult matter arises in the House, specious arguments are raised to destroy what should be the basis for a good debate. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did himself and his party a disservice by arguing that what is a very small amendment to admissions policy would destroy Church schools.
	The counter argument was also made—that many schools have children who are from other faiths or who have no faith at all. Although the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Muslim Council of Britain have said that they want the proportion of such children in each school to be between 10 and 15 per cent., it has been claimed that diluting the purity of faith schools will cause them to be destroyed suddenly. I do not believe that those two arguments can go together in a sensible way.
	The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned that my personal beliefs were different from his. From that perspective, may I point out that no faith worth its salt could hold that to bring in children from other faiths, or none, would so challenge that faith that it would be destroyed? Any faith that held such a view is not worthy of the title.

Paul Goodman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: If the hon. Gentlemen will let me finish my point, they can express their excitement.
	We are coming to the heart of the argument. The Churches may be extremely concerned—although I do not believe that they are—that, by including in their schools children of different faiths or of no faith, their whole mission would be destroyed. However, the state should not be wholly funding schools to support a Church's mission. A Church's mission is for the Church itself—it should not be the objective of state funding in our schools.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way to me earlier as his last few words have revealed the true purpose of the Liberal Democrat/old Labour proposal. Would not the amendment give the local education authority the power to say that a school may not admit more than 25 per cent. Catholic pupils, or 25 per cent. Anglicans, or 25 per cent. Muslims? It is not about admitting only 25 per cent. of pupils from other faiths, but as many as 75 per cent.—at the behest of the local council.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman always looks at the black side of any proposal. I realise, of course, that at the end of the debate I shall have to be thrown to the lions to be devoured.
	If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause carefully, he will see that it provides for the policy to be agreed locally. The admission forum would have to agree it locally. Indeed, the word "may" appears in the new clause; it is not a directive in that sense. The school's admission forum may decide that the policy is not appropriate in certain circumstances. We cannot be fairer than that.

Paul Goodman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I shall give way in a moment, as the hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to intervene before I had said three words.
	Another argument advanced by both the hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) is that Church schools are successful because they are Church schools. I fundamentally disagree.
	Let us deal with schools that are successful—although I do not actually know what that means. If we define success only by the number of students who achieve five GCSEs at grades A to C or who pass A-levels, I challenge that definition. However, let us use that as one definition of a successful school. It is appalling for any Member of Parliament to claim that such schools are successful, without considering their make-up and without comparing them with schools that the hon. Member for Ashford would consider unsuccessful.
	If hon. Members take the trouble to examine the Civitas study and to compare the make-up of schools—their catchment area, the number of pupils taking free school meals and the special educational needs factor—they could make a realistic assessment of the results achieved in different types of school. We must not think that simply because a school is Church of England, Jewish or Muslim it has a divine right to success. That is not the case. Schools are successful because they have good leadership, good teachers and supportive parents.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman wants to change that.

Phil Willis: No, with respect, I want all children to be able to have access to excellence if it is available. I do not want it to be kept for a certain group of children who happen to have passed a faith test before they go to school. Most of the Church schools that I visit do not want to be exclusive—they want to broaden their boundaries.

Paul Goodman: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) right to say that under this clause a local authority could tell a Catholic school that only 21 per cent. of its pupils should be Catholic? Effectively, the clause could destroy the character of a large number of the faith schools that already exist. If that is the aim of those who tabled the clause, should they not be honest enough to admit it to the House?

Phil Willis: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House know me reasonably well by now—well enough to realise that if that was what I meant, it is exactly what I would say. That is not the intention and it is not my point of view. On admission forums, it was the previous Government who took away the right of local authorities to determine their admissions policies. Those arrangements are still in place and there has to be an agreement about distribution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Phil Willis: I wish to make some progress. In an hour's time, I will take more interventions.
	The amendment is not an attack on Church schools. If it is portrayed—[Interruption.] With respect—

Paul Goggins: I will not take long, as I have spoken for long enough, as I am sure many hon. Members would agree. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be directing a number of his comments at me so I think that I ought to have a right to reply. He seemed to be reinterpreting some of my remarks to the point of making them a complete travesty.
	First, many Church schools serve disadvantaged communities—fact. Secondly, faith schools gain better examination results—fact. I said that the reasons were complex, but those are the facts.

Phil Willis: The hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record and we will leave it at that.

David Chaytor: rose—

Phil Willis: I will not give way as I wish to make some progress now.
	As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made clear, this clause is not an attack on Church schools. There are hon. Members who would frankly like such schools to go altogether. They have that point of view and they support the secular society. I do not and that is not Liberal Democrat party policy. I must make that clear.
	I recognise the enormous strengths of many Church schools. I have two superb Church schools in my constituency and they practise what I am trying to preach in that their entries are inclusive—they encourage children from other faiths—they have the largest ecumenical sixth form in the United Kingdom and they do tremendous work outside the UK in other areas, in particular, in Northern Ireland. I recognise the great strengths of our Church schools.
	What I find unacceptable is that while the majority of Church schools deliberately choose to have inclusive admissions policies—in a Church of England primary school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) 95 per cent. of the pupils are from Muslim backgrounds—a small number of them will not move from the position that they want an exclusive enclave unless legislation encourages them to do so. I think that that answers the hon. Member for Ashford. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the mission of those schools is so special that they cannot allow anyone to dilute it, I challenge his argument.

Damian Green: I am glad that we have now got to the heart of the issue. The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the new clause, which would radically alter the character of 6,000 schools, is intended to deal with a small minority. Is it not up to him to prove why the disproportionate change that he and his hon. Friends are proposing should be accepted? If the measure is aimed at only a small minority of schools, it is wholly disproportionate and dangerous and it puts at risk excellence of education in many schools, in particular in our inner cities.

Phil Willis: I had thought that a highly intelligent member of the Conservative party was leading on education, but that argument is ridiculous nonsense. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways; he cannot say that a significant number of schools have open admissions policies and encourage children of other faiths and of no faith and that the proposal will destroy 6,000 schools. Let us remember that the Bill applies only to secondary schools; it will not affect any primary school at all. Again, most hon. Members would recognise that our school system has been built on filling in the gaps since 1870, especially in primary education.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No, I will not give way for a second time because the hon. Gentleman was not nice last time. [Interruption.] The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Ashford is not worth serious consideration.

Simon Hughes: I am always nice. Does my hon. Friend accept that his proposal is not only seen as modest by many people, including many in Church schools and the families of those who attend them, but is hugely welcome in communities such as mine, which have mixed-faith backgrounds and where some of the best schools already admit a percentage of pupils who are not from the same faith? The proposal would deal with the terrible system whereby many people suddenly find a faith and start going to church, resurrecting a faith that they have not practised for years, to get their children into a school, and once their children are in, they are never seen in church again. There is a hypocrisy about the current system, which the proposal would begin to get rid of, and an honesty about the proposal, which would be hugely welcomed in most urban communities in England.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that comment, which stands on its own. There is clearly a contradiction in that only 10 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom go to any church at all, yet suddenly there is an overwhelming demand for faith schools. Somehow, those two things do not balance.

Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No. I want to make progress.
	The purpose of new clause 1 is very simple. It is intended to deal with admissions policies and the principle of inclusion. The White Paper clearly stated that the intention was to increase the number of faith schools and that, in fact, they should be inclusive in character. I gave evidence to Lord Dearing's commission, and Lord Dearing's report made it clear that the Church of England wanted another 100 schools, but it wanted them to be inclusive.
	The Archbishop of Canterbury, who was quoted by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made it absolutely clear in an interview that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement two and a half weeks ago that he wanted to see Church of England schools that were not 100 per cent. Church of England. That was a positive statement. The Muslim Educational Trust has gone on record as saying that it wants any new school to be inclusive. There is a recognition that inclusion should be at the heart of any expansion of our system.
	Although the right hon. Gentleman did not quote the public opinion polls, it is clear from polls published in The Observer and The Times Educational Supplement and by MORI that the result of every poll is against what the Government are trying to do. I am not against what they are trying to do, per se, but I am trying to moderate it, so that we can ensure that schools are inclusive in their operation.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the word "moderate"?

Phil Willis: No, I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to take up too much time.
	Mention has been made of Northern Ireland, Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. It is important to address the issues involved rather than sweep them under the carpet. The hon. Member for Ashford is absolutely right. There were no Muslim schools in Bradford. However, the Ouseley report and the Cantle report draw the damning conclusion that children are already educated in segregated communities. Do we want to gold-plate that by making schools single faith as well? If that is the hon. Gentleman's vision—to make sure that children are kept in their place in their communities—it presents a frightening prospect for the future. 5.15 pm
	The overwhelming conclusion of children in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley was that they did not want to be educated in single-faith schools. They wanted to be educated as part of a broader community. We must respect those wishes, too.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is making a travesty of my remarks. To say that I want to impose a single-faith school on anyone is ludicrous. Those of us who are opposed to the new clause are saying that parents should choose. Therefore, if parents do not want single-faith schools, they will not have them. The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the riots in the northern cities were not caused by single-faith schools, so to pray such events in aid of his argument is absurd.

Phil Willis: At times, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to my arguments. The Cantle report and the Ouseley report draw the damning conclusions that the way in which children are currently segregated in schools does not provide them with a basis for living in a multicultural society, or with an understanding of each other's cultures and faiths. Although, in my constituency, that does not matter too much, because the Catholic school and the Church of England school work together, have a joint sixth form and are virtually all-white, it matters enormously in Bradford and Oldham, where there are hugely depressed communities.
	Before the hon. Gentleman yawns again, may I point out to him that yesterday's Ofsted report contains the damning finding that, although people from ethnic minorities have lived in this country for generations, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean youngsters are performing worse than anyone else. Are we saying that we want to bung most of them into schools that are out of the way, and that that will improve things? I do not believe that at all.

Ashok Kumar: Does not the Ouseley report also reveal that the ethnic loyalties that are built up are cemented by segregation at a primary school level, and, subsequently, at secondary level? We must stop that at that level, otherwise the problem will only escalate further.

Phil Willis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the real challenges for education authorities in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford is to take up that challenge in their education systems. I honestly believe that the new clause would go some small way towards recognising that everybody should consider the way in which schooling is organised and admissions policies work, so that we try to encourage a greater mix. Alternatively, as the hon. Member for Ashford wants, the good schools in the good areas will continue to ban children.
	That is exactly what happens in Oldham, where Muslim children cannot currently get into the two Church of England schools. I congratulate one of those schools, which last week changed its admissions policy and said that it would deliberately take 15 per cent. of its pupils from non-Church of England backgrounds. That would not have happened without this debate—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may howl but, in reality, unless we are prepared to confront these issues and have these debates, nothing will change. That is why we are here.
	New clause 18 offers an alternative. We intend to divide the House on new clause 1 and new clause 18, which would apply to faith schools that are created after the Bill is enacted. As for that being unfair to Muslim communities, the Church of England wants to create another 100 schools. The Sikh faith also wants new schools and there is a move by the Jewish community to have more Jewish schools. All of those would need to have an admissions policy that provided for a mixed intake. That would be a good thing. I will be happy if new clause 18 at least is accepted and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will call my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to talk to new clause 2.

Estelle Morris: I join the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the way in which he introduced the debate. On the whole, the tone has been constructive and positive. To a large extent, the debate is welcome. The subject is raised outside the House and it is right that we debate it here. I have no objection to that, although I shall set out why it does not have much to do with the Bill.
	I accept that there are things on which the House is united: a deep concern for tolerance and for more cohesive communities; a wish not to see a repeat of the events that occurred in many northern cities last summer; and a deep concern about the nature of the world after 11 September. We also share an awareness that, as we are enriched by rightly becoming a more multiracial and multicultural society, it is more difficult and challenging to teach and encourage tolerance. That is our starting point. I accept that as a given for every hon. Member.
	I also accept as a given the fact that most parties are split on the subject, and some may be more divided than others. The divisions are born not out of an adherence to a political party, but out of long-held views that were not taken into account when hon. Members chose which political party to join. Although the debate is to do with politics, I accept and respect the fact that Labour Members can have legitimate views about the role of the Church and of faith and Church schools and still be honourable members of the party who have every right to stand for election on a Labour party manifesto.

Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Estelle Morris: Yes, but I want to make it clear that I will resist giving way after every other sentence, which has been the nature of the debate so far.

Simon Hughes: In view of the conciliatory tone of the Secretary of State's remarks, will she also accept that there are different views within the hierarchies of faith communities and the faith communities themselves? Bishops of the Church of England take the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and others. Some people, certainly in the Roman Catholic Church and of the Muslim faith, take the view endorsed by the Government. There are no fixed, certain positions on this. However, the younger generation is overwhelmingly against division by faith. Young people reject it whatever the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Estelle Morris: Any organisation would be strange if it did not have a range of views, but I would not go as far as the hon. Gentleman. The Roman Catholic Church and parts of the Jewish and Muslim faiths think that they keep the faith base in their schools because most of the people who attend them practise that faith. That is not true of the Church of England. Its admissions are far more inclusive. It believes that its faith value base can offer a good education for children of different faiths. I respect those views.
	However, like my hon. and good Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), I am not going to base my arguments against the new clauses on the contention that faith schools are inherently better. My arguments stand whether or not faith schools are at the top of the performance tables. I am not busying myself counting the number of Church of England schools that featured in yesterday's Ofsted list of outstanding schools. I am not arguing against the amendments because faith schools have a higher academic standard. If they do so now, that may change in future, and they may not always have had such standards in the past.
	The danger in using such an argument is that one unwittingly gives the impression that unless a school is a faith school, it cannot be a good school. Not a Member of this House feels that; no one feels that. Good schools are good schools whether they are faith schools or not. One way that I approach my job is to celebrate success wherever it occurs, and I never assume that success comes in any one shape, form, colour or creed.
	I have always felt that the strength of faith schools for those who have a faith is a shared value base—a sense of purpose, mission and being. That needs to underpin any good school. Interestingly, I first experienced that not when I was a teacher in an inner-city, multiracial, non-faith school, but when I started visiting faith schools in my constituency as a much younger Member of Parliament from 1992. Faith schools find it easier to articulate such commonality.
	I am not saying that any school that is not a faith school cannot have common values. Many non-faith schools strive for such values and find them. However, in a Roman Catholic school, there is a natural link between school and Church and home and community, which all of us who are interested in education know is the very foundation of the educational partnership that is good for children. Again, I am not saying that that does not exist outside Church schools. However, I have come to value and appreciate the fact that, for many people, it is easier to find in a faith school.
	My argument against the amendments is one of tolerance, which is exactly the argument deployed by those who support the amendments. This debate is not about who is more tolerant; it is about how we go about creating the tolerant society that we want.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend is saying that she finds in faith schools a commonality and an ability to promote inclusion and understanding of others. If that is true, surely it would be beneficial to the community as a whole and more in keeping with the ethos of those faith schools if they accepted people outside that faith. That would broaden the benefit.

Estelle Morris: Many do so; 20 per cent. of children in Roman Catholic secondary schools are not of the Christian faith, and many Church of England primary schools, which contribute to the 7,000 total voluntary aided schools, are the only primary school in their village and receive all-comers—everybody who lives there.
	Head teachers in Roman Catholic schools in my constituency tell me that the fact that they are committed to admitting pupils by religious faith gives them their commonality and the link between home and Church and school. I do not want to take that away from them. That is what I regard as tolerance. I do not want to deny them the right and the ability, which they have had for a long time, to admit pupils according to faith to achieve the commonality and base that they value.
	I am not saying that such commonality cannot be achieved elsewhere. I know, respect and applaud head teachers in inner-city, multiracial schools, which one might argue face more difficulty in establishing a common value base. I do not want to deny a Roman Catholic, a Muslim, a Methodist, or whoever, the ability to create that common value base if that is what they feel makes their school successful.

Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend knows that the admissions policy in most Church schools is built on a lie. She talks about the commonality between the Church and the school. Why, then, do only about 8 per cent. of adults in this country attend church, whereas in America, where there is a separation of Church and state education, the churches are full?

Estelle Morris: People do not have to go to church to say that they belong to a particular faith. For the record, I am a confirmed member of the Church of England but, to be open about it, I do not attend church regularly; I go only at Christmas and for constituency carol services. However, we should not say that people who maintain that they adhere to a faith do so only if they attend church. Some Churches may say that people have to attend church on Sunday to adhere to a faith; I do not accept that argument, and would not want to deny people that right.
	I shall explain what the Bill is about and quickly say why the new clauses and amendments are flawed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that their intention is important and that if we really wanted to accept them, we could amend them in the Lords. He said that it was easier to draw up amendments in government and that the number of Government amendments on the amendment paper is an argument for that. The Bill is not about faith schools. Nowhere does it say anything about them; it will not introduce a single additional measure to establish more faith schools. It does not change decision making; it does not change anything; it does nothing to promote more faith schools.
	In recent months, the Government have rightly said that we want to promote more faith schools, but we have not taken legislative powers to enable us to do so. We want to make a level playing field for existing powers. Prior to 1997, there were only Christian and Jewish voluntary aided schools; there were no Muslim, Sikh or Hindu schools. I shall come on to that later, but it is the reason for the Government saying that we want to promote more faith schools. In meetings with Labour Back Benchers and with the public, I have said, as Secretary of State and on behalf of my whole team, that I am not about to spend one minute of my time or one ounce of energy going out to promote more faith schools. Nor, as Secretary of State, am I likely to take one decision that will encourage more faith schools. However, to my dying day, I will defend the policy of making sure that our legislation can be accessed, without religious or any other kind of prejudice, by every single citizen and every single faith.
	That is the nature of our debate. May I make it clear, particularly to Labour Back Benchers, that the Government rightly said in our manifesto that we will encourage faith schools "where parents wish it", and that we want to promote more faith schools? Our starting point is that it cannot be naturally right in a rich multicultural, multi-faith society that only Jews and Christians have managed to get faith-based schools. We would not look at the leadership of the country, find that it did not include many people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian minority faiths, then turn round and say, "They cannot have wanted it". We would say that the structure must work effectively, and it is in that sense that the Government have promoted the wish for more faith schools. I shall draw attention to a particular way in which we have done so in a few minutes.

David Laws: I am grateful for the tone of the Secretary of State's comments, and for the way in which she dealt with faith schools and higher standards. She focused on the issues of choice and freedom, but does she acknowledge that page 37 of the White Paper "Schools—achieving success" says that the Government are seeking a system in which the best schools lead and create pressure for improvement? It says that they will deliver a better system by
	"Expanding the number of Beacon schools, faith schools, and City Academies."
	The Government have therefore argued that raising standards involves increasing the number of faith schools.

Estelle Morris: The Government have always made it clear that having a mission and, as I said at the outset, a shared value base makes a good school and spurs it on to success. The hon. Gentleman read out a list of schools in the White Paper; their inclusion suggests that schools find that shared mission and shared value in different ways. Some have found it through the specialist school movement, others through the beacon school movement, but some find it through being a faith school. If other schools want to find it through being a faith school, I do not want to deny them that route to a sense of mission and purpose.

Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: In a few minutes, when I have made some progress.
	There is nothing in the Bill that will make a difference to the current position. I shall tell the House how the decision will be made, as no one has asked about that and it is so important. If members of a faith want to start a new school, they will not come to me or to any of my successors. They will go to the local school organisation committee, on which are represented schools, the local authority, parents, governors and churches, which are likely to be Roman Catholic and Church of England churches.
	The committee has a statutory obligation to consult. It will consult and make a decision. It will not ask us in the Department, it will not seek our permission and I will not authorise the decision. It will be nothing to do with me. That is what I mean when I say that we are not giving our energy or our time to promoting more faith schools. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough would appreciate the fact that we have said to local people, "You decide whether you want to admit to the family of local schools a new school of a voluntary aided nature."
	I have emphasised that for two reasons. First, it is important for people to know that the Government do not intend centrally to create, authorise or designate more faith schools. Secondly, and probably more important, I know that people feel—I say this in the most sensitive way—that we have given the green light to members of various faiths who are at the more fundamentalist, more extreme end of their faith. Every faith has such members, and people feel that we have given them the green light to open schools. Whether that happens will be up to the local school organisation committee. Every new school must go through the school organisation committee, where the decision will be taken.

Phil Willis: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in the vision that she has rightly set out, one of the defence mechanisms needed against fundamentalism is to ensure that the direction is that schools must be inclusive? That is what we are arguing about today.

Estelle Morris: I agree, but I argue against the idea that the admissions policy is the best or only way to make a school inclusive—that is why I am so against the new clause—and that it solves the problem that the nation faces. That is the thrust of my comments.

Malcolm Savidge: My right hon. Friend encapsulates a great problem for many of us who are members of the Labour party and Members of the House. We hear that the Government will encourage more faith-based schools. We do not remember being consulted about that as members of the Labour party, and my right hon. Friend seems to be saying that Members of Parliament will never be able to vote on the issue. Whether or not we increase religious segregation is an important matter, and we ought to have some opportunity to debate it.

Estelle Morris: I am reminded that the subject was in our manifesto, which I quote:
	"We will encourage more church and other faith-sponsored schools, where parents wish it."
	That is the manifesto on which I stood and on which my hon. Friend stood. [Interruption.] I know that the House wants me to read more from the manifesto, but I shall resist the temptation.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: I shall first say why I believe the new clauses are wrong, then I shall give way to my hon. Friend and fellow Birmingham Member.
	Hon. Members should be clear about what they are voting about this evening. New clauses 1 and 18 are roughly similar, as has been said. It is a matter of timing for new schools and old schools. Essentially, the new clauses would prevent schools admitting children according to the faith of the child or the parents. We have spoken at length about giving that power to the LEA and I do not intend to go over that again. Hon. Members will make up their own mind whether they think the local education authority is the right body to exercise that power. The new clause does not state
	"in agreement with the local admission forum",
	but
	"after consultation with the admission forum".
	The authority would consult the forum, but would not be obliged to reach agreement with it. Indeed, the LEA could make the decision without the agreement of the admission forum or even the school organisation committee.
	I have two other serious concerns about the new clause. First, every single hon. Member knows what an admissions round at primary school transfer is like. My advice bureaux are full of people who did not get their first choice and we all write a lot of letters about such matters. What could happen in the middle of the admissions round? A school that does not reach its quota of faith-based applicants cannot say merely that it will do so next time. It would have to go back to the LEA, which would then have to consult the admission forum. The LEA would have to make a decision for every single school. The matter would then go back to the school, which would have to re-do its admissions round. That would be a disaster.
	The new clause would also extend the right for schools to admit by faith. At the moment, the only schools that can admit on that basis are voluntary aided. The new clause would give the local authority the right to authorise any maintained school, whether or not it is voluntary aided, to admit between 20 and 75 per cent. of pupils by faith. Whereas the right to admit by faith currently belongs to 7,000 voluntary aided schools, the new clause could make it belong to 24,000 maintained schools.

Frank Dobson: My right hon. Friend may recall that when I introduced the new clauses, I said that it was quite possible that they were faulty—[Laughter.] They might be almost as faulty as the Bill, which requires 43 Government amendments on Report and will, no doubt, require an abundance of further amendments in the House of Lords. She should not try to foot-fault us, because she has the ability to do something next time there is a set or even a match.

Estelle Morris: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but it is very dangerous for politicians to table amendments and then say in the middle of the debate, "When you vote, don't for a minute think that you're voting on the amendment that is printed in black and white in front of you; we really didn't mean that, so please vote on something else." My affection for my right hon. Friend knows no bounds, but in terms of persuading people to take the risk that he proposes, I thought that he would want to get as many hon. Members as possible to vote for the new clause but in effect, he has just said, "Blimey, don't so many of you vote for it that it's passed, as it's not what I want to do."

Andrew Lansley: I should declare an interest, as both my eldest daughters attend a Church of England school. I am entirely with the Secretary of State in her arguments about wanting to leave those schools free to set their own admissions arrangements. Does she agree, however, that if we leave schools with that right, it is important that they exercise it openly and transparently? They should ensure not only that the arrangements are inclusive wherever possible, while meeting parental preferences, but that the appeals system for admissions, whose amendment we are considering, is independent, so that the admissions criteria for Church of England schools are not operated by a cosy club in ways that lack proper integrity.

Estelle Morris: There are schools in each of the sectors that do not operate their admissions policies as openly as they should. It is not the thrust of my argument to say that Church schools do everything well. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are some that have an admissions policy that must be skewed—indeed, we have seen examples—to get the sort of intake that they achieve. I do not defend such practices, but I urge us not to judge the whole system on that basis.

Lynne Jones: I shall support the new clause, but I am interested in whether my right hon. Friend is willing to consider delegating the matters with which it deals to the local schools forums.

Estelle Morris: No. One of the arguments against the new clause is that it does not provide for local consultation and would give power to the local education authority without agreement. I do not want to accept the new clauses, and I would not accept them if they were amended to provide for delegation to local school forums.
	I want to explain my main reason for rejecting the new clauses. If they were accepted, we would stand less chance of attracting faith schools that are currently in the independent sector to the maintained sector. The number of pupils who are educated in faith schools in the independent sector has risen significantly in the past year. Paragraph 393 of the Ofsted report states:
	"The number of pupils being educated in Muslim independent schools has increased by 40 per cent . . . in Jewish schools numbers are up by a quarter to nearly 9,000; and in evangelical Christian schools they have risen by around a fifth".
	Since 1997, the Labour Government have admitted 13 non-Christian schools to the maintained sector. All but four were transferred from the independent sector. Those four were two Jewish primary schools in Hertfordshire, a Jewish primary school in Redbridge and a Greek Orthodox school in Croydon. The Sikh schools and the Muslim schools were all transferred from the independent sector.
	I shall put my cards on the table. I want these schools to be in the maintained sector rather than the independent sector. I want them to be in the framework of accountability and their performance data to be placed in the public domain, as happens in the maintained sector. We do not all agree about that, but it is a strong argument. I also want faith schools to have to make available to their pupils the equal opportunities for boys and girls that schools in the maintained sector are obliged to provide. That is vital.
	If we accept the new clause, I believe that an independent school that has to decide between remaining in the independent sector and being able to admit according to faith, on the one hand, and joining the maintained sector and running the risk of being instructed by an LEA that it can admit only 20 per cent. by faith—I accept that that is an extreme example—on the other, would remain in the independent sector. That would be a loss. Such a school would not close or cease to exist; its pupils would not transfer to multiracial, multicultural schools where, as if by fluke or magic, we have managed to get a good balance of colour, creed and race.
	Forty per cent. more Muslim children attended independent schools this year because they had no choice. They wanted a faith-based education and they had to go to the independent sector because we had not made such provision in the maintained sector. It does not matter what I or any hon. Member thinks about what we would do for our children. In a multicultural age, when we show tolerance, I have no answer for a black constituent in Yardley, or someone in inner-city Nechells or Aston who asks, "How come if you're a Christian or a Jew you can exercise a right to voluntary aided, faith-based education, but if you're a Muslim or a Sikh, you can't?" If parents want faith-based schools, I want to make them available in the maintained sector. I therefore object to the new clauses in the name of tolerance, although, ironically, they were tabled in its name.

Jon Owen Jones: I respect the sincere views of my right hon. Friend. She speculated about why people choose the independent sector and she suggested that they do that because the option of faith-based state schools is not available. However, many Muslim children who grow up in inner-city areas find that they are not allowed to attend the faith-based school—of whatever Book—that they wish to join because it does not admit anyone who is not, for example, Catholic or Church of England. That is an equally valid reason for choosing the independent sector.

Estelle Morris: That point has been made by a number of hon. Members; it is a truism. I am not sure whether the argument has been put forward today—I have certainly heard it in the many debates that I have had about faith-based schools—that it would be terrible to exclude a child because it had brown hair. Of course that is the case. Life is never quite as simple as that, though. In defending the right of a Church or a faith to admit by faith, as I do, I entirely accept that the reverse of that principle is that someone may not be admitted to the school next door to their house because they are of a different faith. I would be silly to argue that that was not so.
	Politics, like life, is always about weighing up someone's rights against someone else's freedoms. Those hon. Members who support new clause 1 have weighed up those rights and freedoms and come down on the side of giving the person living next to the Catholic school the right to go there, no matter what. I have come down on the side of giving the right to the Church to select by faith. I do not disparage the view of those hon. Members. I do not say that my view is better, but it is the view of the Government at the moment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Estelle Morris: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies).

Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is an opportunity for new faith-based schools to be voluntary controlled, rather than voluntary aided? This would combine the opportunity for inclusion with the delivery of a religious ethos. Indeed, 40 per cent. of Anglican secondary schools already work in this way. Will my right hon. Friend at least contemplate encouraging faith-based schools to be voluntary controlled rather than 100 per cent. voluntary aided?

Estelle Morris: If they want to do that, fine, but I am not going to force them to do so. That is the main thrust of the point that I am making. What would happen in those circumstances—I know that the Local Government Association supports this view—is that the admissions criteria would change, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests. I have been speaking for far too long already, but the one thing that I hope to get over is that I defend a school's right to admit by faith to maintain the value base of that school.
	I welcome the fact that the Church of England has an inclusive admissions policy. Inclusivity is essential and, as I said earlier, it does not always have to be achieved through an admissions policy. I am not standing here being critical of the fact that Roman Catholic schools, Muslim schools, Sikh schools—or whatever—have achieved inclusivity. I am not going to force them to do so, but I welcome schools that have achieved inclusivity either through an admissions policy or through other arrangements.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Estelle Morris: I want to make some progress, but I may give way later.
	If we were to adopt new clause 1, we would be in real difficulty. I can quite understand the arguments. The inner-city school at which I taught for 18 years was multicultural; I think it was 70 or 80 per cent. non-white. Many of the schools in Birmingham are 99.8 or 99.9 per cent. Muslim, but they are not faith-based schools. The problem with new clause 1 is that it does not tackle any problems that might exist.
	There are many all-Muslim schools in Birmingham that are brilliant schools. I do not want anybody to think that I am critical of them. They are little gems; they are good schools that give a good quality of education to their children. But we cannot start from the premise that we have an education system in which schools are all-Muslim, for example. Let us not forget that the reverse of that is illustrated in leafy Solihull, which abuts my constituency, and where the schools are 100 per cent. white and Christian. Do those schools present the same problem as the 100 per cent. Muslim schools? We have heard less talk about them than we have about the 100 per cent. Muslim schools. [Interruption.] I am not saying that this has been suggested by hon. Members who have spoken today, but nationally—people have come to talk to me about this—some people have shown far more concern about Muslim faith schools than they have ever shown about Christian or Jewish faith schools. I am not attributing such sentiments to any of my colleagues, but some people in our country have voiced those views.
	Under new clause 1, we would have to change the intake of all maintained non-faith-based schools that happened to be 100 per cent. Muslim. I do not know how we would do that. Would we bus children in? Would there be a black/white quota in a maintained school that was not a voluntary faith school? Once hon. Members go down the road of trying to get a school to admit children of more than one faith, they are out of the argument about faith-based schools and into something far more complex.

Glenda Jackson: I am having difficulty following this part of my right hon. Friend's argument. There is nothing in the new clause that would preclude the possibility of a faith-based school having an admissions policy. The only addition that we would like is that 20 per cent. of the intake should be either from another faith or from no faith. No one is attempting to reduce the autonomy of faith-based schools, but we are concerned that too much exclusivity can lead to real divisions in society.

Estelle Morris: With great respect to my hon. Friend, another provision in the new clause would mean that a school could find itself being allowed to take in only 25 per cent. of children from its own faith. It does not matter what I think; what the Churches say to me is that if they were reduced to that 25 per cent. point, they would feel that their commonality—the essence of what they feel their Church is all about—would go. If Church schools have an inclusive admissions policy, that is great, and I am not prepared to take that away from them, because that is how they feel.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main flaw in new clause 1 is that it suggests that the use of selection criteria is a way of creating inclusivity? Many schools in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in mine do not have any religious basis; none the less, 100 per cent. of their pupils are drawn from a single denomination or religion. The question of inclusivity is about the practice in those schools, rather than the religion or the selection process.

Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been really worried about the debate on these issues over the last few months. What happened in Oldham and Bradford last summer was terrible. This is our nation, and every one of us wants far more cohesion than we have ever seen before. Every hon. Member with a multiracial constituency in a multiracial city goes home at the weekend and worries about the things that they hear, and about the lack of cohesiveness there.
	My worry is that there are real issues out there about social cohesion; we, as a nation, have to face up to some very difficult issues. This is about fragmented communities, and about whole streets in which there is a feeling of alienation from what—whether we like it or not—is the majority culture. My fear is that the debate since last summer has not been about that. I say this guardedly, but the debate has been more about faith schools than about social cohesion. Let us not make faith schools the scapegoats for the lack of cohesion in some of our cities.
	If we want to tackle this problem, we must address issues of urban development, housing allocation policy, employment and sheer racial discrimination. An Asian family in my outer-ring white constituency told me that they wanted to move back to Small Heath because they do not feel at home in my constituency. These issues are so complex. There is an argument to be had, and I would never say that schools do not have a role to play. They have a key role, but getting rid of faith schools will not solve the problems that I know Parliament wants to solve; it is about more than that. Please let us not make the admissions policies of faith-based schools the scapegoats for all the ills of what should be a multicultural society.
	I want to tell the House how the school system should progress. This is a tougher job than one of fiddling about with admissions policies. This is about saying to children growing up in a very complex world, in which they have to experience all the pushes and pulls, that they should be proud of their historic culture and community, although that can sometimes vie with that of the nation in which they live.
	There is a tribal instinct in all of us to be a little bit chauvinistic, although we want to encourage flexibility. We see all the competitiveness between different nations, groups and communities. Against that background, we have to teach tolerance to our children. It is more difficult for this generation of teachers, and for us as a generation of politicians, to teach that tolerance and flexibility in a society that is, by nature, more multicultural, but we have to do it. It will be a hard slog and I do not have all the answers.
	All the factors that I have mentioned are involved, including citizenship on the national curriculum. I am immensely proud of that Government initiative, which will be available to everybody from September 2002. Regardless of whether the school is a faith school, we must ask teachers to find ways to let children mix. While the children are learning art, sport, music or drama together, regardless of whether the school is in a cluster or a partnership, teachers must provide an inclusive education. This debate must be about more than a child being able to say, "I am in a school that is only 20 per cent. Roman Catholic because of its admissions policy, so I know that I am tolerant." The challenge that faces us as a nation is much more than simply changing admissions policy.

Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Estelle Morris: No, I want to make progress.
	For all those reasons, I do not support the new clause. In such a sensitive area, change must be secured by agreement. Even if the new clause were accepted, it would not have the agreement of the Roman Catholic Church or many minority faith Churches, although I sense that it would have the agreement of the Church of England. We would be accepting a new clause that flies in the face of the wishes of certain major religions in this country, without consultation and without plans being published. No manifesto, Green Paper or White Paper has made such provision.
	The concordat afforded by the Education Act 1944 is important to me. I know that it is not set in stone, but if someone wants to change it, they should do so properly by putting forward their plans and reasons, and discussing such change. They should consider the real nature of the problems and confront the challenges that we face. With the greatest respect, they should not go for the easiest solution, which is to change in name the admissions arrangements of a faith school and pretend that we have conquered some of the real dilemmas that we face.

John Gummer: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Estelle Morris: No.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Estelle Morris: If I give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I will have to give way to many other hon. Members.
	I have no less respect for my colleagues at the end of this debate than I have had throughout it. Ours is an honourable difference of opinion. If, in the name of inclusion, we accept the new clause, we shall make some people feel more excluded. In the name of tolerance, we would take away a freedom for Churches that has existed in this country for centuries. In the name of cohesion, we would ensure that some schools remained in the independent sector, rather than joining the family of schools in the maintained sector. This has been an incredibly constructive debate, but, for all those reasons, I trust that the House will not support the new clause.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate, and I begin by nailing an inaccuracy that has been perpetrated throughout—that we are discussing a 25 per cent. new clause. It is a 100 per cent. new clause that would make it unlawful for any school to admit a pupil on the grounds of attendance at religious worship by the child or his parents or the faith of the child or his parents. Schools would have to secure local education authority approval to admit not only 25, 50 or 75 per cent. of children on the basis of religious faith, but even a single child.
	It is misleading—not deliberately so, but misleading none the less—for the proponents of the new clause continually to suggest that all that is required is that such schools be 25 per cent. inclusive. If hon. Members were representatives of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic or Muslim faiths, would they go to the trouble of setting up a school if they were not sure that they were permitted to admit pupils of their faith?
	I and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is no longer in his place, know that many Church schools are inclusive. Some are perhaps 10, 15 or 20 per cent. inclusive—indeed, Church of England primary schools in villages in my constituency are 100 per cent. inclusive—but that does not solve the problem of those who want to set up new schools. If, in so doing, they are to invest time, energy and enthusiasm, and the pennies of the poor, they will want a guarantee that they may provide for people of their faith, as well as for those of others.
	It was interesting to listen to the remarks made by the Secretary of State and, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The right hon. Lady used the phrase "their schools", but the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is also no longer is his place, said that they are not "their" schools, but our schools. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that a few hon. Members want every faith school swept away. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon nodded vigorously at that assertion. Let us be absolutely clear: there are hon. Members, some of whom sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who want to end not only exclusivity in Church schools, but Church schools altogether.

John Gummer: Is not a key issue in the debate Britain's remarkable concordat, which—unlike in most countries—enables faith schools and non-faith schools to work together in the maintained sector? The Secretary of State argues that that is unique and remarkable. To overthrow it because of some passing thought is a very serious step to take, given how successful we have been.

Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend is right, with a single and important exception. For the Liberal Democrats, that is no passing thought, but a long-standing hostility to Church involvement in education in this country.

Jon Owen Jones: I am tempted to ask the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on what basis he concludes that our support system for Church-based schools is uniquely successful and that those of all other countries with political systems similar to our own are not.

Andrew Turner: It is clear that there is a great divide between this country and many others, such as the United States of America. In the US, those who wish to be educated in the Roman faith have to attend an independent school—the equivalent of a non-maintained school—because that country has only secular schools. We are very fortunate to have Church schools within the state, so, to put it bluntly, one does not have to be wealthy to attend a Church school.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman says that "we" enjoy such benefits, but we as a nation do not, because children can be excluded.

John Gummer: That is a silly point.

Andrew Turner: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I shall take the point seriously. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) will allow me, I will take her point seriously. Some people wish to establish schools for the benefit of adherents to their own faith. I believe, as I think many others do, that if those people are to incur the trouble, expense and commitment of their time involved, it must be in order to benefit the whole country, not just those fortunate enough to gain admission.

Glenda Jackson: It was established earlier that 90 per cent. of the costs were met by taxpayers. I do not know where the "pennies of the poor" come in.

Andrew Turner: They come in by meeting the other 10 per cent., and they have met a great deal more in the past.

Graham Allen: As the non-religious father of a child at a Church of England school, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is taking account of the Education Act 1944 when referring to Protestant and Catholic schools? Following 11 September, Oldham, Bradford and the social disintegration in certain cities last year, many Labour Members fear that if we allow a big expansion of faith schools they will be seen as places in which to hide—that, rather than being part of a socially inclusive policy, they will be places where people barricade themselves inside the school gates, beyond the mainstream of society. Surely that is exactly what we do not want.

Andrew Turner: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman's view, but I did not hear him use the words "Muslim" and "Sikh". I wonder whether he is one of those referred to by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who have mentioned the possibility of Muslim and Sikh schools. I suspect that that is the hidden fear of some, mostly not Members of Parliament, who oppose the extension of faith schools.

Graham Allen: My worry is that those who are probably at the greatest risk of social exclusion will not be included in mainstream schools.

Andrew Turner: That is exactly why I support proposals to include schools of all faiths in the body of maintained schools.
	I was talking about the Liberal Democrats' long- standing hostility to the involvement of the Church in education. In Committee, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that he had
	"a fundamental objection to the state paying for the promulgation of a faith within a school . . . We should not be encouraging schools to be run for faiths, but promoting the coming together of faiths."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 January 2002; c. 340-1.]
	That is the hon. Gentleman's view, and it seems to be the view of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, whom I think I heard say "Yes, yes." Nevertheless, those who adhere strongly to a faith, and indeed many who adhere less strongly, want their children to be brought up in that faith. Why should they not have that opportunity?

David Laws: I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has not been a Member for long, but surely he is experienced enough, and sufficiently well versed in political issues, to know that the new clause is supported by many Liberal Democrats who are strongly committed to religion and to religion in schools. That is because they are concerned about the liberty of those whom the line that he is taking would exclude from good schools.

Andrew Turner: Of course I accept that, but I take a different view, and unlike the Secretary of State in her response to those whose views are different from hers, I think that I am right and that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
	The trouble is that the new clause and the speeches—especially that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—say different things. I do not decry what was said by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. That speech, however, suggested that this was a modest, even moderate proposal that would allow no more than a tweaking of the admissions policies of a minority of schools that currently accept 100 per cent. of pupils from the same faith. That is not the case. The new clause would have a much deeper more dangerous consequence: anyone who runs a faith school now—not to mention anyone proposing to establish one in the future—would have to obtain approval from the local authority before being legally entitled to admit a single child on the basis of the faith involved. That is what subsection (1) means.
	I do not know whether supporters of the new clause envisage the establishment of bin Laden academies throughout the country, with the approval of school organisation committees or otherwise; but I do not think that the admission of pupils from other faiths would make such schools less fundamentalist, because I do not think that those from other faiths would apply for admission to schools with those unacceptable characteristics. The new clause is directed at, and would damage, the sensible, moderate, involved Church schools that are so successful in our community. For that reason, it should be resoundingly defeated.

Stuart Bell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He may not have been here for long, but he made an excellent speech. I also congratulate the Secretary of State. It is said that the best speeches come from the heart; she certainly spoke from the heart, but she also spoke with a deep knowledge of and commitment to the subject.
	As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I want to put the Church of England's view. The Church has an historical partnership with the Government, and with local education authorities. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the concordat of 1944. The Church is concerned for the quality of education in all schools, and remains committed to providing education in line with its historical tradition, in all parts of society including areas of need.
	The vast majority of the Church of England's 4,700 schools are neighbourhood schools serving their local communities. The Church welcomes opportunities for other faith communities to sponsor schools in the maintained sector, and believes that those too should be inclusive. It therefore believes that it has a distinctive contribution to make to the nation's education.
	Parental demand for places in Church schools is high. Many of the secondary schools are over-subscribed. Last year, there were on average 1.6 applications for each year 7 place.

Kevin Brennan: Whatever sympathy one may have with the philosophy behind the new clause, might it not have an unintended practical consequence? Might not popular Church schools be forced to take on people who do not belong to the faith in question while, in effect, excluding those who do but who come from less well-off backgrounds, who would be creamed off by the comprehensive sector?

Stuart Bell: The world is full of the law of the unintended consequence, and I think that the new clause falls into that category.
	The heavy demand for places has resulted in some Church secondary schools' having an exclusively Christian intake, but the Church has adopted a national policy of seeking to ensure that all Church schools admit children from other faiths and from no faith. That is to enrich the educational experience of all the pupils, whatever their background.
	Developing more Church of England secondary schools will help to ease the overall pressure on places and promote greater inclusivity. In that context, the Church is committed to providing an education on the basis of faith that creates the opportunity for a genuine encounter between different faith groups. Its approach is different from that of schools that do not have a distinctly religious character.
	For those reasons, the Church would resist the imposition of a percentage quota of children to be admitted for diversity in new religious schools. A quota, be it 20 per cent. or some other figure, is too prescriptive. It may not be realistic in areas where the make-up of the local community does not support such a quota.

David Chaytor: The Church of England would resist a specific percentage quota but given its commitment to open Church schools to pupils of other faiths or of no faith, would it be prepared to accept a band within which pupils of other faiths could be admitted?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. However, we are dealing with this Bill and these new clauses, and my comments are directed to them.
	The proposal for a quota fails to address the more widespread issue of how communities can become segregated as a result of housing policies or demography, an issue that relates as much to community schools as to schools with a religious character.
	Lord Dearing's report entitled, "The Way Ahead: Church of England Schools in the New Millennium" referred to an appropriate balance in admissions policy between open and foundation places. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in depth to admissions policy and admissions officers. It is a matter for local government, not for national prescription.
	For those reasons I ask the House to reject the new clauses and the amendment.

John Gummer: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills was right when she referred to the historic compromise that is the basis on which our schools operate. It is important for the House to understand that for many people the religious content of education is the most important part of education. It may be that some do not believe that it is. I have been fortunate enough to be able to afford to choose the schools to which my children went. They went there because of the centrality of the faith that was taught there. It would be deeply intolerant to say that that choice should be available only to the faithful who are well off enough to make that choice. It is because I believe that that is a proper part of a tolerant society that I want to speak against the new clause.
	It is clear that for some hon. Members the only good is a particular kind of multiculturalism and multiracialism—a system that ensures that no one shows any difference from anyone else. I can understand that, but I beg them to accept that for others that is not the paradigm. Many of us believe that people who are secure within their own faith find it easier to reach out to very different people than do those who are insecure in their background and faith. There are very good examples of that. Some of the greatest proponents of tolerance in intolerant societies have had the strongest adherence to their faith.
	An important point was made by one Labour Member, who pointed out that by the accident of geography many schools almost end up being exclusively of one faith. Would it not be odd if we allowed schools that were faith based by accident, but excluded schools that were faith based on purpose? Schools that are faith based on purpose often seek to use their faith to extend an understanding of the brotherhood of man through an acceptance of the fatherhood of God. Those schools can often do more than any other in a community to extend the very tolerance that we seek.
	To say that it is not acceptable to have a faith-based school is fundamentally contrary to the freedom that we have had in this country for centuries. It says to the whole nation that it is not proper for those with an income below what is required to pay for the education of their children to hold their faith so dearly that they want it to be the basis of that education. I find that a most intolerant position. I know that it upsets the hon. Member for Camden but she must understand that many of us feel that her position is the intolerant one, not ours. We are asking people to be allowed to have a choice even though they are not very rich. That should appeal to her, rather than cause her to object.

Glenda Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman is as ill informed about the name of my constituency as he is about religious history in this country. I represent the seat of Hampstead and Highgate. Many Catholic educational foundations in this country had to provide their own education facilities for children because the prevailing Church of England view at that time was that they should be excluded from British society. Therefore, the argument that religion always informs and enlarges human understanding and is pledged to the greater brotherhood of man is wrong. That is by no means the history of religion in this country.

John Gummer: The fact that I referred to the hon. Lady's constituency by the borough in which it is situated is not an entirely wicked thing to do. Her partial view of history runs totally against the fact that all major social advance in this country has been carried through by those who have been motivated by their religious faith. To deny the influence of Wilberforce, to attack Salisbury, to say that the Churches have not had a fundamental levelling effect shows her ignorance of history. I would not like to have been responsible for her education.
	This country is what it is because of the witness of men and women of faith. They have upheld the concept of the brotherhood of man because of their belief in the fatherhood of God. To deny children the right to go to a school where that is the central tenet upon which all depends is a very sad denial of freedom.

Roger Berry: rose—

Glenda Jackson: rose—

John Gummer: I give way to the hon. Lady because she is particularly determined to get in.

Glenda Jackson: I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of wickedness, but he certainly does not need me to point out his overweening arrogance. Does he really claim that the advancement of the human situation is entirely and exclusively due to those who have practised a particular religious faith? That is clearly absurd and discounts the extraordinary cruelties and incredible prejudices that have been exercised in the name of various religions. It seems that his argument for the fundamental excellence of a religious education is as ill founded as his knowledge of the name of my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Glenda Jackson: Short interventions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for that, although I was not intending to make that particular point. I wanted to say that there is a danger of language getting into excess, and it would be better to calm it down.

John Gummer: The hon. Lady rightly says that many people do many things in the name of religion that we would not support. I merely said that many of the major changes in this country of which she would approve were effected by people whose motivation came from their faith. To deny that is to deny a fundamental element in British history.

Paul Goodman: Is not what the hon. Lady said a confirmation that, as some of us claimed earlier, the motivation of some of those behind the new clause is an apparent hatred of faith schools and of religion?

John Gummer: I departed from my usual emollient way of speaking precisely to flush that out. I know perfectly well why so many of those who will vote for the new clause will do so: not from the moderate, reasonable motives set out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras or because they want to give a little bit of help to the difficult areas where inclusiveness is awkward, but in pursuance of their long-standing hatred of those who stand for something that they believe so deeply that they consider it the centre of their lives, want it to be the centre of their children's lives and do not want to exclude from it those who cannot afford to pay to make that choice.

Roger Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: I really ought to give way to a Liberal.

Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that others will vote for the new clauses who share his faith, if not his denomination, and his view that there should be a right to have faith schools, but believe that it is wrong that any faith school should be able to insist that all its pupils be of its particular faith. That is a perfectly reasonable and moderate view.

John Gummer: It would be a perfectly reasonable position if it were not an exclusive one, but the hon. Gentleman is proposing not that some schools should be faith-based and admit a range of members of other faiths but that it should be illegal for a maintained school to have a fully faith-based intake. That, to me, is intolerance. One of the sadnesses is that the Liberal party has a three-line Whip on this. [Interruption.] As I understand it, the Liberals are under strong pressure to vote for the new clause—I put it as delicately as I can. That is a most illiberal proceeding from a party that once believed that people should be allowed to choose for themselves and not be bossed about by a lot of politicians deciding what is best for them.

Simon Hughes: This is a real debate. The difference between us is that, for many of us, the experience is that people have not been able to have that choice, because schools have chosen to exclude people of other faiths who want to attend them. All we are asking is that, if there is not a situation in which all the places are taken up—which is covered elsewhere in the new clauses—schools that take money from the state should be required to admit some pupils from faiths or denominations other than their own.

John Gummer: But the hon. Gentleman cannot say that and still deny that he wants to have a society in which no school may choose both to be part of the maintained sector and to have 100 per cent. of pupils from its own faith. I call that intolerant. It is divisive and unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is insisting that his view of what is best should prevail against the view of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church or most Muslims.

Roger Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a reasonable point and I want to explain to him why I think it is very serious. First, he is setting his view against that of very large sections of law-abiding and reasonable people who want the opposite. Secondly, whether he likes it or not, he is excluding from the experience of a faith-based school all those whose parents cannot afford to pay for it. To me, that is intolerant, too.

Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Roger Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, I will not give way to any of the hon. Gentlemen, because the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey intervened in a very courteous way and I want to explain to him the third reason why I feel that he is wrong. He is wrong because he is suggesting that we should not have wider rather than narrower choice in our society. I want people to have more choices, so although I do not like the fact that some children go to schools where there is no religious education at all, I have to accept that if people really want to make that choice, they must be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman must not therefore say that those of us for whom faith is the most important thing in life and education cannot choose it for our children unless we can pay for it.

John Burnett: I strongly support the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. I hope he will agree that it is also true that to foist an arbitrary quota of 25 per cent. on schools is in any event utterly inappropriate in certain localities.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must be right, but it is also inappropriate for another reason: it applies a mechanistic system in place of choice. The trouble with choice is that it means trusting people. "Trust the people" was a very famous phrase. We have to trust the people to make decisions for their own children. I happen to believe that parents should do that, and that, as far as is humanly possible, we should do nothing to take that choice away.
	I find it very odd that something that for many parents is the most important part of that choice should be restricted, and especially by a House that contains a predominance of people who do not take that view. This is a real issue. In a world in which the majority do not much care about these matters, it is an important part of democracy to give freedom of choice to those who do. It is part of the reticence of democracy that becomes more important when the vast majority think differently.

Phil Willis: How does the right hon. Gentleman square that position with the fact that, for all the years when he was in the Government—and indeed the Cabinet—they consistently denied the Muslim faith the right to have its own schools?

John Gummer: That is a travesty of what happened, and although I did a lot of jobs in government, I never had a job in an Education Department. If the hon. Gentleman had ever done any of those jobs, he would understand how these issues are decided. Moreover, if it would have been better to do that in the past, it must surely be wrong to say that in the future we should stop it. If he is saying that we should have done it earlier, why is he supporting the new clause, which would prevent it?
	I recognise that there is a real problem when a particular faith has less connection with the historical fabric of a society, when we are trying to create a multicultural society. We know that. It is foolish to pretend that that is not so, but we have to take the risk. I am afraid that that is one of those things we have to do.
	If Muslim parents want their children to go to a Muslim school, I do not believe it right for any of us to say that they may not, yet that is what the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to do. [Interuption] It is no good the right hon. Gentleman accusing people of repenting when he will not allow Muslims to have all-faith schools. It is perfectly reasonable—

Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, I wish to—[Hon. Members: "Give way."] I shall be happy to give way when I have finished my point. In that way, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will be able to put his point with the sharpness for which he is known.
	If Muslims are to have choice, they must be able to choose the school that they think that they want. We must not say that they can have a Muslim school, but that 25 per cent. of its pupils must be non-Muslim. That is not what Muslims are asking for. They are asking for faith-based schools that are 100 per cent. Muslim. In a free society, they must be able to have that.

Frank Dobson: For a start, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Had he bothered to read some of the letters that have been sent, he would have realised that Muslim representative organisations want their schools to be inclusive. They do not necessarily want them to be 100 per cent. Muslim.
	It sticks in the craw to listen to any Tory talk about giving Muslims the opportunity to have Muslim schools. There was not the faintest chance of that happening when the Tories were in government. The opportunity for them to have such schools has arisen only since this Labour Government came to office. We are saying that we want equality, and that we want all religious schools to be willing to accept 20 or 25 per cent. of pupils from other faiths, and from no faiths. That sort of proposal is a function of central Government from which we should not resile.
	The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the famous concordat of 1944 was based on the 50:50 contribution—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going to excess with his intervention. That is quite enough.

John Gummer: The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras protests too much. Some Muslim organisations want to have the sort of mix that he describes, but others do not. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has the right—and I believe that he thinks he has the duty—to tell Muslims what they shall have. I am saying merely that I believe in a free society, and that people should be able to make this choice for themselves.
	The real difficulty for me is that the party that is most against centralisation—the party that is always talking about local choice and that always wants decisions to be made at the lowest level possible—is busy saying that the one decision that people cannot make concerns the matter that for some people is the most important thing in life. That matter is the religious nature of the school to which they send their children.
	People do not have to go to faith schools, and parents do not have to make the choice to send their children to such schools. If too few parents make that choice, faith schools will not be available. We suggest that people should be allowed to choose in big matters, not merely in small ones. There is an attitude to choice that suggests that it should be peripheral. I believe that people should be able to make choices about the important things in life. For some people, religious education is the most important thing in life, and so the choice for them is very important.

Kevin Brennan: Would the right hon. Gentleman extend his belief in freedom of choice to allowing people to set up a humanist school, in which there would be no religious worship or daily service?

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that many schools behave in that way, even if they do not adopt that name. A school in my constituency is exactly as he describes. I do not agree with it, but I support its right to make the choice that it has made. Indeed, I had to fight the Government to prevent it from being closed down. That was because the Government did not like the progressive form of education that it was offering. The hon. Gentleman therefore cannot teach me anything on that issue.

Simon Hughes: I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to be careful, as he has slipped occasionally into criticising those who support the new clauses. The new clause proposes only limited admission control; it has nothing to do with any argument about the right to found schools of any faith. No hon. Member has argued that there should not be a right to found faith schools. There may be a debate about that, but it has not taken place today, and it is not part of the case being set out by the proponents of the new clauses.

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman kindly brings us back to the key point in the debate—that choice should not be partial. It is not for him to say, "We will allow you choice, but only within the parameters that we consider decent."
	Those who oppose the new clause are saying something different. We are saying that the glory of a tolerant society is that individuals can make choices that are extraordinary and huge. They can choose about big things that really matter, and which make a difference.
	When I stood up for Summerhill school in my constituency, I was able to say to the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is now Secretary of State for the Home Department, that although I did not like the school, that I would not send a child of mine to it and that I did not like the way it ran its education, I was willing to fight to the death for its right to teach in the way that it did. I was also willing to fight for its right to exclude people who wanted to choose a different kind of education.
	Why should that choice be available only to those rich enough to pay for it? That is grossly unfair. Does the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey want the proposals to be extended to those who pay for their education? If not, his position is very peculiar. It is that only the poor shall be forced to go to schools with the mix proposed in the new clause, and that the rich will be excluded from that requirement.
	That seems to me to be wholly intolerant, and reminds me of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, which wanted to suppress vice among those with an income of less than £500 a year. The new clause would achieve something similar, as it would suppress faith schools for those who are not rich enough to pay. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is being even less liberal than I thought him to be.
	It is interesting that the party with the most liberal name should have become the party with the least liberal policies. Liberal Democrat Members think it is wicked to consider abortion wrong, and they now think it wicked to suggest that 100 per cent. of pupils at a faith school should be of one faith.

David Laws: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have been trying to avoid being provoked by him for some 20 minutes, but matters have reached a critical point.
	Liberal Democrat Members of course understand the argument about choice presented by the right hon. Gentleman. However, is not his a rather short-sighted and partial view of choice? Let us assume that a new faith school has been built in a town in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, and that it has just gone to faith status. Let us assume, too, that a child who went through the primary system with his friends now wants to go on to the new school, which is only 30 yards down the road from where he lives. In my scenario, the school is of high quality, but the child is prevented from going to the school that he prefers, with his friends, because that school will not take any pupils who do not belong to the faith that it represents. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to that child and his parents when they came to see him at his constituency advice centre?

John Gummer: First, I have had to help a number of my constituents with regard to choice of schools. In my area, it is often true that not everyone is able to go to the school of first choice. Sometimes, I have to tell Roman Catholic children who cannot go to the Roman Catholic school that there is not enough space. The new clause, therefore, will not resolve that problem.
	Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that propinquity is so important that it overshadows people's right to decide the nature of the school that they want to run. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) does not accept that it is right for people to be able to make such choices. The choices that are made by people might upset the hon. Gentleman, or me. For example, some schools in my constituency do not, in my view, honour the faith status with which they were endowed. They have become so inclusive that it is difficult to tell the difference between them and schools with no faith base. I am sorry about that, but that is a decision for those schools to make. I have to accept that, if I want the right to make choices as I want, others must be able to do the same.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way to the pressure to interrupt me, because I want to tell him that the danger to tolerance comes when those who would be tolerant are asked to accept something that they themselves do not like and do not want. We are in danger of becoming a society that is tolerant of everything that we accept but that is unwilling to be tolerant of things that are inimical to us.
	I recognise the damage and the danger. That is why I have changed my mind about several social and moral issues. I used to believe that we should be much less tolerant of activities and actions of which I disapproved. I do not believe that now. I have come to that conclusion because we are in significant danger of having a cosy tolerance within limits, whereas we need the difficult tolerance of allowing people to make big choices that really matter and which for them are central and basic and which we must defend.

Alice Mahon: I speak in support of the new clause introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) because I want to put children and their education for the future at the centre of our lives. The most important thing we can do is to help them to live together in understanding—not segregated and attending different schools. We shall then have a more cohesive and decent society.
	I also want to speak up for the 40 per cent. of people who admit to no religion. By and large, they have been excluded from the debate until now—and possibly from our manifesto.
	I am the child of humanist, socialist parents. I went to a Church primary school because it was the only school in the village, so I had early experience of how it feels to be treated differently in school—because my parents were different. For many, many years I was quite intolerant of Church schools.
	I then went through another phase. Like the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I have found that I changed my mind as I went through life. However, during the past 10 or 15 years, I have turned back to my other views.
	In 1989, the UK signed up to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:
	"The child shall have the right to freedom of expression: this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds."
	That is a strong basis for education.
	Like the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I want a level playing field, but perhaps mine would be different: I want all our schools to be secular. Newfoundland has just got rid of its Church schools. That is a good thing and will enhance integration. I realise that that course is not possible for us, but my right hon. Friend's proposals will help us to progress to greater integration.
	I challenge the notion that religion is a precondition for morality. It is not. A child brought up without religion can be a moral human being who knows the difference between right and wrong. We must challenge the notion that religion and morality are necessarily the same.
	My experience of life shows me that many agnostics, atheists and humanists are often more tolerant than religious people. Many of my non-believer friends do not believe in capital punishment and do not want to drop bombs on civilians. However, I have many friends who are Christian or Muslim or from other faiths who hold the opposite view. We should not assume that just because people are religious they are superior to us. If we extend the number of faith schools, we are making the assumption that their religion makes them superior.
	I want to address the argument that faith schools have a reputation for delivering better education—especially in the secondary sector. There is selection in faith schools: by their very nature they select. By selecting, they cream off pupils. They take less than their share of deprived children and more than their share of children from middle-class backgrounds.
	I am from Halifax. I went through the whole saga of the Ridings school. Anyone who wants to study selection should go to Halifax. At the top of the pyramid are two grammar schools which select. Then there are two opted-out Church schools which also select. We are left with two secondary modern schools and the Ridings school. That is how selection works.

Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alice Mahon: No, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal took up an enormous amount of time and I want to speak briefly.
	In October, I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by about 80 hon. Members, pointing out that faith schools are not only about selection but about the exclusion of children.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras touched on another issue that I want to raise. I want to sing the praises of teachers in community schools. Their moral values are no less than those of someone who opts to teach in a religious school. We should praise those teachers for their teaching about humanity and human values. When they talk about inclusivity, we should praise them—not denigrate them.
	I have three more points. First, more faith schools will be damaging to racial and religious relations. About 8 per cent. of the people of Halifax are Muslim: not one of them has asked me to support them in setting up a separate Muslim school. I have held many discussions with them about education. Like all immigrant populations, they realise that education is the way to get on and to achieve integration. They are trying to better themselves and their children through education. I have never been asked for a Muslim school in Halifax and I am pleased about that. Incidentally, we were not consulted about the inclusion of the manifesto commitment on faith schools so I did not feel that I had to defend it during the general election.
	I ask hon. Members to read Lord Ouseley's report: "Community Pride not Prejudice, Bradford Vision 2001". The report was commissioned before the Bradford riots and was published just after they took place. It asked several questions, one of which was:
	"Why is community fragmentation along social, cultural, ethnic and religious lines occurring in the Bradford District?"
	The conclusion was that the answer lies partly in education.
	The young people of Bradford spoke for themselves about what had gone wrong. They complained that there was polarisation of communities along racial, ethnic and religious lines; that there was limited or non-existent interaction between schools; and that there was "virtual apartheid" in many secondary schools.
	In his conclusion, Lord Ouseley noted:
	"What was most inspiring was the great desire among young people for better education, more social and cultural integration . . . Young people realise that being taught in religious ghettos is not a good preparation for life in a multi-cultural society."
	Those are the words and conclusions of those young people. They are not mine. Why cannot we listen to those voices?

Andrew Turner: rose—

Alice Mahon: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Malcolm Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Alice Mahon: I have already said that I would not take interventions. I have almost finished my speech.
	My second point is about Northern Ireland. We cannot smooth over it and pretend that it does not exist. Anyone who witnessed little girls running the gauntlet of hatred as they tried to go to school—some of them for the first time—must reflect on the wisdom of segregation based on faith. We cannot ignore that problem.
	My third point relates to the Cantle report, which makes it clear that separate education leads to lack of cohesion and integration. The report notes:
	"The development of more faith-based schools may, in some cases, lead to an increase in mono-cultural schools."
	Of course it will. It says that it will be a big problem for the future, so it is irresponsible to promote the idea any more. Faith schools are a big mistake.
	I recognise that I am in a minority in the House in saying that I want secular education in all our schools. Obviously, we will not get it with the new clauses and the amendment. Faith schools are about division and I have had personal experience of that. They are also about selection. They encourage parents to lie about attendance at church. Only 8 per cent. of adults attend church in this country. People who do not agree with faith schools and do not want any more of them often ask me why the rest of us should pay to indoctrinate children in only one religion when our churches are empty. They ask why the churches are not doing their job. If their religion is so good, let them fill the churches.
	Religious schools discriminate against everyone who is not of their faith. I disagree with the letter sent to the Secretary of State from the Muslim Council of Britain. The letter makes my point for me. It states that the council does not mind including a few children of different faiths, provided that they operate within a Muslim ethos. That will exclude any other ethos and it will not produce the healthy, well-educated and well-balanced child of the future. It will lead to more divisions.
	I will support the new clause in the Lobby. I urge the Prime Minister to listen to this debate and to those of us who have spoken against having more faith schools. Let him, for once, listen to us, especially after 11 September. The last thing that we want is more division and segregation in society.
	Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a well respected journalist and Muslim, recently wrote these words of wisdom. She said that many people think that
	"traditional multiculturalists believe that equity means that funding Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools must also mean state funding for Muslim and Hindu schools where there is sufficient demand . . . we need a different approach—to fairly represent the society we live in without breaking it up further into minority groups aided and abetted by the State."
	She is completely against state funding for religious schools, saying
	"there should not be state funding for state schools of any religion".
	I totally agree.
	In my life, I have gone on a journey through various points of view, some based on my early experiences, but in the past 10 years I have come to believe that in 2002 we must try to work towards a secular state education system that is bothered about education and not indoctrination.

Paul Goodman: I speak largely on behalf of my Muslim constituents in High Wycombe, who are a disadvantaged community whose views should be heard with respect. My Muslim constituents have told me—before the election and since—that they see Church of England and Catholic schools in the Wycombe area, but no Islamic schools. Whoever they may have voted for at the election, most of them want a Muslim or an all-girls school in the constituency.
	The Bill would make it easier for faith schools to be established. The Secretary of State was careful to say that that was not the intention, but it is none the less clear that that would be the effect. What effect would the new clause have on the desires of my constituents? Subsection (2) is the most important part of the clause. It makes it clear that in the last resort, even though it is "after consultation", the local education authority
	"may by regulation authorise"—
	"authorise" is the key word—
	"that . . . a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination."
	I am not sure why those figures are given. Those who have supported the new clause did not explain them, but perhaps we may learn the reason in due course.

Phil Willis: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. The new clause was drafted to include percentages recommended in the Cantle report.

Paul Goodman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up at least. [Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is saying that that is still not an explanation. He may be right, but I want to return to the new clause.
	If my Muslim constituents had a school that was maintained on the same basis as a Roman Catholic or Church of England school, under the new clause the local authority could in the last resort say that only 20 per cent. of its pupils could be Muslim. In the eyes of my constituents, a school with only 20 per cent. Muslim pupils would not be a Muslim school. I appreciate that Church of England schools are different, but my constituents are not thinking of those schools.
	I fully accept what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said about his motives in introducing the clause. He said that he was not carrying on any vendetta against faith schools. However, the most important thing about the clause is its effect and I believe that in many parts of the country local authorities would tell people who wanted to set up a Muslim school, "We're sorry, but only 20 per cent. of your pupils can be Muslims." I may wrong, but I believe that to be the case.
	My Muslim constituents do not oppose Church of England or Roman Catholic faith schools. They are happy that they are there. Were they following this debate closely and I hope that some of them will—

Frank Dobson: Is it the case that some of the hon. Gentleman's Muslim constituents would like to go to schools of other religions?

Paul Goodman: Some of them do go to such schools. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me what my constituents want, the majority of my Muslim constituents—this includes the majority of those who voted for the Labour party at the election as well as those who voted for me—want a Muslim school.
	The new clause would affect not only any future faith schools but those that exist at present. It simply states that "after consultation" the local authority could authorise those percentages in "a maintained school". That must mean any maintained school and not merely any such school that might be established.

David Laws: I appreciate the careful and well-argued way in which the hon. Gentleman is developing his case. How much flexibility does he believe his constituents should have to determine the character of schools, both existing and new, in his area? Would he be willing for them to determine not only the religious nature of the school but whether it should take boys and girls or one sex only? Would he be willing to give his constituents any further powers or impose any further constraints on them as to the type of individuals or nationalities that might be accepted?

Paul Goodman: I made it clear to my future constituents at the election that I would be happy to have either an Islamic or a girls' school in Wycombe. I would not want 100 per cent. of the pupils in a Muslim school to be Muslim, but that is my personal view. I should like members of other faiths to be taken as a mix, but the important factor is what parents want and schools can manage, rather than what I as a politician lay down by diktat to my constituents. That is how the Conservative party's view is rather different from that of the Liberal Democrat party. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to return to new clause 1.
	The principal point is that, under new clause 1, local authorities could tell existing faith schools that only 20 per cent. of their pupils could come from their religion. As I say, some Church of England schools would have no difficulty with that, but existing Roman Catholic and some Church of England and existing other religious schools would be placed in great difficulty by new clause 1. That is the key point.

Edward Leigh: To illustrate that point, I have a child at the London Oratory school and also a child at Our Lady of Victories school, both of which are in central London. Both schools are hugely over-subscribed and, sadly, have to exclude many Catholics. If new clause 1 were accepted, even more Catholics would be excluded from those schools and would have to go to schools that did not share their values. That would be unfair on those children and their parents, would it not?

Paul Goodman: My understanding of new clause 1 is not exactly that that would happen, but my hon. Friend is certainly right to say that it could happen. Throughout the country, many pupils and parents would be adversely affected in exactly the way that he describes.
	For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause. There is some clumsiness in its drafting. If I understood the Secretary of State correctly, under the new clause, if some religious fanatics happened to take over a local authority, they could insist, by diktat, that a maintained school should become a faith school. Those hon. Members who support new clause 1 have been somewhat careless, even though one of them is a former Secretary of State, but I shall leave that matter aside. In conclusion, there is no substantial motive to vote for the new clause, and I hope that the House will overwhelmingly reject it.

Piara S Khabra: I represent a constituency where a large number of people from many different faiths live. I was born in India, and I have the experience of being a pupil in religious schools. I am not happy about the concept. I do not hold any religious views, but it is not a good concept. This is an interesting debate, and I have listened to many hon. Members speak about faith education and religious schools, but they have mostly talked about Christian or Muslim schools; not much has been said about the large Hindu and Sikh communities. I find from personal experience that there is not much support in the Sikh and Hindu communities for faith schools.
	I am able to support many of the good things in the Bill. We have taken enormous strides in improving the provision of primary education since 1997. I am delighted that the Government are willing to put the necessary investment into education. It is with those improvements in mind that I broadly support the Bill, as it seeks to shift the focus to secondary school education. A frequently heard complaint—which, as a teacher, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills no doubt understands—is that schools and individual teachers often find the current legislation restrictive. That is the reason why I welcome the recurring theme of flexibility in the Bill.
	I believe that teachers will welcome reform that removes imposed initiatives that can result in excessive work loads, and instead allows the freedom to create a less prescriptive curriculum framework. Although the Bill sets down the core and foundation subjects for key stage 4, it will allow changes to cater for the need to respond to the future shape of the post-14 curriculum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that we are debating the new clause, not the Bill in general. He must confine his remarks to the new clause.

Piara S Khabra: I was about to come to new clause 1, but I wanted to assure the Minister that I support the Bill. However, one aspect of policy that I do not feel able to applaud is the support for the expansion of faith schools, which troubles me greatly. I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who are seeking to address the admissions policy of faith schools.
	I will set aside for the moment the more philosophical arguments put forward, including the thought-provoking ones outlined by Richard Dawkins in his open letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. First and foremost, the research does not seem to support the confidence in expanding faith schools as a means of improving standards.
	The Conservative think tank Civitas, which one might have expected to support the expansion of the role of the Church in education in fact argued in its report, "Faith and Education", that
	"Church schools are not as good as the Government thinks."
	The work by John Marks, director of the Civitas education unit, calls into question an automatic policy of expanding Church schools, pointing out that standards in faith schools are inconsistent, and I tend to agree with him.
	Church schools may or may not intentionally select middle-class pupils, but they tend to end up with fewer children from poor families. A recent study carried out in Wales concluded that, when the different levels of free school meal entitlements had been taken into account, differences in performance between Church and other schools
	"were not statistically significant".
	The key to improving standards is surely to consider the nature of the teachings used in schools, rather than the faith-based element of any establishment.
	Even if the empirical evidence on results did not throw into question the desire to expand faith schools, the possibly damaging effects outside the classroom should give pause for thought. I am not suggesting that all faith schools encourage segregation, and I am aware that there are some notably good faith establishments in the country, but the fact is that we do not live in a single-faith country, never mind a single-faith world. In my opinion, the policy will be divisive and will risk bringing down education standards in many areas. Furthermore, it is likely to cause social friction between and within communities.

Malcolm Savidge: I should like to cite the experience north of the border, where Aberdeen is the only one of the four big cities that has integrated schools; the others have religious segregation. Aberdeen does not suffer from the religious discrimination, division and dissention that can still sadly blight the life of Scotland.

Piara S Khabra: I fully agree with my hon. Friend's view. A large part of who we are—our views, our aspirations and, unfortunately, our prejudice—is formed in childhood. Prejudice is more often than not due to ignorance, and faith schools are likely to create more ignorance among children who are not able to think for themselves; nor are their parents.

Ashok Kumar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the multicultural and multiracial society has progressed over the past 30 or 40 years has been a great achievement? We have made society more harmonious. The creation of faith schools is likely to lead to segregation and not to the integration that has been the hallmark of our society. Does he agree that there are serious dangers with faith schools?

Piara S Khabra: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Ethnic minority children, in particular, have achieved greater success in education when they have gone to integrated schools. I came to this country in 1959. In the late 1960s, the National Front mounted a campaign to have ethnic minority children taught in segregated schools, but the advantages of integrated education for those children are great. In a segregated school—whether we call it a faith school or not—100 per cent. of the children will be from an ethnic minority community, and they will not receive the education that they should receive and that would enable them to fit into society when they finish their education. That is the great danger for ethnic minority children.
	Faith schools will not provide an opportunity for children of many different faiths to work together, learn together and live together. Under the Conservative Government, schools were able to opt out of public control, and I remember that the official policy of the Labour party was to oppose opting out. I do not understand why the Labour party's policy has changed in favour of more private provision of education. We were against private education in principle, and I do not believe that people from poor families will benefit even from faith-based schools.
	Education should remain the responsibility of the local education authorities and should not be handed over to private interests that are sometimes dominated by religious extremists. We might think that faith-based schools will be able to provide similar opportunities to children from other faiths, but that will not happen for ethnic minority children. We are trying to compare the current situation with what happened a century or two ago when Christian and Jewish schools were established. The situation is completely different now and we should not fall into the trap of accepting this new idea of faith schools.
	We should pursue a pluralistic and secular approach to education. Religious schools will intentionally encourage people towards particular religious beliefs. Have we not learned enough from the madrassah schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Have we not learned from the attacks of 11 September in New York and Washington? We are following a dangerous path and I hope that hon. Members, and the Minister in particular, will reconsider their position and take this opportunity to amend the Bill.
	Faith schools will lead to children having less tolerance for children of other faiths. Such schools have the mission to provide education to the children of their faith and they are not directed towards achieving the standards of education that we need in a modern society and a modern economy.

Claire Ward: Surely my hon. Friend accepts that the legislation introduced by the Government and reinforced by the Bill, which he said he supports, will maintain high standards. The fact that a school is a faith school and promotes a certain faith—whatever it may be—will not diminish the quality of education that it provides. Surely he cannot suggest that it would.

Piara S Khabra: I am not sure about that. The Bill will extend the provisions to other faiths and there will be more faith schools. Many applications will be made and it is a tragedy that money from public funds will support such schools. My hon. Friend does not know what will happen. She presumes that standards will be maintained, but I do not agree with her.

Claire Ward: It is not a presumption. The standards that have been set and enforced by the Government are designed solely to ensure that all schools of whatever faith offer a high quality of education. We cannot use arguments about standards to oppose faith schools or the expansion and extension of them.

Piara S Khabra: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I seriously doubt whether the new faith schools will be able to maintain the standards that we expect.
	If schools are based on religion, why should they not support the ideas of a certain faith? That is what they are meant for. They will teach more religion, and what teachers will they employ? We will not be able to control the religious fanatics who might teach in such schools.

Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that however a school constitutes itself—whether as a faith school or not—it will be covered by legislative requirements concerning Ofsted, equal opportunities, the national curriculum and health and safety? Legislation spreads to all schools in all communities and applies to how they are run and how they meet the needs of children. Legislation applies to all schools, including any new faith schools.

Piara S Khabra: Although my hon. Friend suggests that many restrictions will be placed on the new faith schools, supervisors will not be present in the school at all times to monitor those—the mullahs or others—who teach religion. Such schools will not necessarily stick to the rules and regulations required by the law.

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is entirely wrong? In its provisions for powers to innovate, the Bill will allow schools to disapply the national curriculum and every other piece of legislation that they want to disapply so that they can carry out what they think is right. That will give those schools exactly the opportunities that he has described.

Piara S Khabra: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	As I said, why should faith schools not support the ideas of a certain faith? However, that will lead to an increase in segregated education, and that is a reactionary move that is particularly damaging to the interests of ethnic minority children. Inspectors' reports show that Hindu and Sikh children do better than the Muslim children who are taught in segregated schools. That is because communities with more liberal ideas about education are more interested in obtaining a good education for their children.
	If we provide an opportunity for religious people to have their own schools, we cannot stop them teaching what they want about their faith to their children. Such schools will lead to segregated education, which will damage the interests of ethnic minority children. There is a provision for state schools to give a religious education. They can provide whatever religious education a child might need, so why do we need more faith schools? There is no need for schools to be run or owned by a religious organisation.
	The idea of a faith school is a reactionary one. It has the capacity to hinder the progress of the good education that is suited to modern society, the economy and possibly even scientific progress. In some American schools, topics such as evolution cannot be taught, are sidelined or are wholly dismissed. I hope that we never reach that stage. There is always an opportunity in faith schools and private schools to ignore what is required by the law. The national curriculum might mean that they have to teach certain subjects, but they might not be inclined to put their best efforts into that if it is contrary to everything that their faith tells them to believe.
	We do not have to look as far as the dreadful attacks on New York and Washington to see the dangers of prejudice and the misunderstanding between cultures. We need only to look at the reports on last summer's riots in the north of England or the dreadful scenes in Northern Ireland where children were verbally abused or spat at on the way to school. Have we learned nothing from that experience?
	Opinions were expressed after the Bradford riots that segregated schools can be a prime cause of racial hatred. It was also suggested that communities were fragmenting along racial, cultural and faith lines and that segregation in schools is one indicator of that trend. I am usually inclined to argue on the side of parental choice, and of course I would argue in favour of parents choosing to send their children to whatever school they like. If parents want to send their children to faith schools, and the demand is certainly there, some may ask why such schools should not be allowed. I believe that when society as a whole is at risk of being damaged, questions need to be asked. The danger of division through intolerance is an adequate ground for objecting to the provision in the Bill.
	There is much to commend in the Bill and it is a shame that such worthy ideas as devolving more powers to head teachers have been overshadowed by the discussion and comment on faith schools. Like many other hon. Members, I am concerned about the idea of extending faith schools. Schools and religion are too uncomfortable a mix and the Government should not involve themselves in such a way.

Evan Harris: I want to speak to new clause 2. It has rightly been selected and has important implications. I support the purposes of new clause 1 and new clause 18, which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) eloquently addressed. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the contribution by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), whose powerful points I support. Although I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) said, I cannot join him in praising the Bill. I think that he had to get that comment in to excuse his views to Members on his Front Bench. Indeed, I also agree with the sentiments put so clearly by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) in his intervention.
	I am especially pleased that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall referred to the views of Professor Richard Dawkins. He is my constituent and, like me, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, which I want to declare as an interest. I am grateful to the NSS for advice on the issues covered by new clause 2.

Kevin Brennan: As a member of the National Secular Society, does the hon. Gentleman find it odd that he secured his place for today's debate by using a prayer card?

Evan Harris: I am not sure that I am guilty of that, because the prayer card is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). I have views on the use of Prayers to obtain a seat, but I do not want to try the patience of the Chair, so I shall stick to new clause 2.
	Hon. Members may not be aware of what the new clause is about. It would repeal sections in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. They are not set out in the Bill, so it is useful to clarify what it would do. It would repeal sections 58 and 60. The former states:
	"Where the number of the teaching staff of a school to which this subsection applies"—
	basically, religious schools—
	"is more than two, the teaching staff shall include persons who—
	(a) are selected for their fitness and competence to give such religious education as is required in accordance with arrangements . . . for religious education in accordance with the school's trust deed or with the tenets of the school's specified religion or religious denomination, and
	(b) are specifically appointed to do so."
	It is curious that there is a provision on our statute book to ensure that certain teachers are appointed and promoted on the basis of their ability to teach religion according to the religion of the school in which they teach. Religious education is supposed to be non-denominational, non- directional and non-proselytising. It is not clear why the reserved teacher status is necessary. Surely when we teach subjects, including religious education, in any school, we want the best teacher for that syllabus.
	Section 60 has even worse implications. Subsection 5 states:
	"If the school is a voluntary aided school"—
	a religious school—
	"(a) preference may be given, in connection with the appointment, remuneration or promotion of teachers at the school"—
	that is, the hiring or firing—
	"to persons—
	(i) whose religious opinions are in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to the school under section 69(4), or
	(ii) who attend religious worship in accordance with those tenets"—
	in their spare time, presumably—
	"or (iii) who give, or are willing to give, religious education at the school in accordance with those tenets; and
	(b) regard may be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school"—
	the sacking of a teacher—
	"to any conduct on his part which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the religion or religious denomination so specified."
	It does not require a teacher to act illegally, unlawfully, or inappropriately, or to breach of the norms of a teacher's employment contract; a teacher just needs to be outwith the tenets of that religion. That relates to what maths teachers, French teachers and science teachers do within the law in their spare time if that goes against the tenets of the religious controllers of voluntary-controlled or voluntary-aided schools.
	New clause 2 would eliminate those sections of the 1998 Act. It is necessary for three reasons. First, the sections unlawfully discriminate against employees on religious grounds. Secondly, they militate against the best interests of pupils because they sacrifice best teachers to the ones deemed religiously appropriate. Thirdly, they are unnecessary in the context of the exemptions provided in the European Union employment directive due to be introduced by December 2003.
	I should like to set out why I feel that the provisions, and especially section 60, which the new clause would repeal, are discriminatory. Section 60 allows for employees, as it happens, in the state sector, who are funded by taxpayers' money—salaries are 100 per cent. funded by the taxpayer; the 10 or 15 per cent. contribution from the Church is for capital costs—to be discriminated against on the grounds either of religion or of perfectly lawful, appropriate behaviour that goes against the tenets of the religion concerned.
	We do not need to go too deeply into that, but some people will be aware that certain religious organisations have very strong views about the inappropriateness of homosexuality—a practice that is lawful and private and none of an employer's business. The exemption under the EU framework directive could make it legal for a school to invoke section 60(5) in order to terminate the employment of such teachers. Indeed, teachers currently work in that danger.
	The provisions are also discriminatory in that teachers of faith can teach anywhere. They can apply for any job in any school—religious and non-religious—but a secular or atheist teacher cannot teach in some schools and is therefore deprived of certain opportunities. The legislation in effect gives the small number of teachers who teach from a religious perspective privileged access to a large number—100,000-odd—of publicly funded jobs. That number would become even larger if more faith schools emerged from the Government's proposals. That amounts to institutionalised discrimination, as there is no counterbalancing body of community schools where teachers who are not committed to some faith are favoured over teachers who are religious. I am not of course advocating achieving equality by spreading discrimination.
	The job prospects of many excellent teachers who are non-believers in any religion are therefore reduced, and the disadvantage that they will suffer may increase with every new faith school that is opened. With such a high proportion of teaching posts—as well as, perhaps, new teaching posts—concentrated in faith schools, it is possible that teachers in some localities, especially rural ones, will have difficulty in obtaining employment unless they are or claim to be of the requisite faith.
	Secondly, the provisions militate against the best interests of pupils because what matters to the education of our children is having the best teacher at that subject and not the church attendance of a teacher. How religious in any school does one need to be to teach mathematics, French or science? Does one need a working knowledge of Genesis to teach geology? I will go no further than to say that I doubt that that is a requirement.
	Given that there is such a short supply of teachers—and, I would imagine, a specific shortage of faith-based teachers given the small proportion of the population who are members of the Church of England, for example—there is a worry that teachers who are not as good as others will be appointed, especially if the number of faith schools increases.

Angela Watkinson: Let us imagine that the new clause is agreed and denominational schools are obliged to accept applications from anybody, irrespective of faith. Supposing that of those interviewed the best person for the job happened to share the school's faith. How do you then—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use parliamentary language. When she says "you", she is addressing the Chair and not the hon. Gentleman.

Angela Watkinson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How does the hon. Gentleman think that the school could be protected from challenge by applicants who are unsuccessful and do not share the school's faith?

Evan Harris: I am asking that a situation obtain which obtains in every other circumstance—in the state sector, certainly. One would hope that under the provisions of the EU employment directive, which I hope the hon. Lady's party supports, although I think it is still considering it, appointments could be challenged in an employment tribunal. Clearly, the school might consider it a bonus if the best candidate were also of the same faith, but I am arguing that the best candidate should not be rejected and that a good teacher should not be sacked or overlooked for promotion simply because of their beliefs or whether they attend church or mosque in their private time. The provisions are inappropriate and I cannot understand how they can be defended.

Mark Hoban: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about teachers in faith schools. I do not know whether he has attended a faith school. I have, and I know from experience that teachers at that school were a combination of those who supported that faith and those who did not support it—some were practising Catholics, others were not. The school's duty was to balance the needs of supporting and sustaining the religious faith of its pupils with achieving the best examination results—as well as other factors. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the new clause relates to a very narrow example of how faith works in schools? There are much broader issues, which he seems to have ignored so far in his speech.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) in arguing that the job of a religious school is to promote its religion. As I understand it, the job of religious schools is to promote an ethos and not a particular religion. That point was made eloquently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, whom the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who is no longer in his place, quoted. I believe that one can promote an ethos without determining what teachers do in their spare time with regard to their private religious beliefs.
	There is a worry, as far as the Dearing committee's proposals for the Church of England's expansion are concerned, that there are not sufficient Christian teachers. Church of England schools constitute about one quarter of all schools, but Church of England membership, among which one might imagine the majority of Christian teachers in Church of England schools might count themselves, represents only 3 per cent. of the population. Some teachers in community schools will be members of the Church of England, so that reduces the pool even further.
	The education officer of the Church of England London diocese has admitted publicly in the Church Times that it is unrealistic to expect to fill staff vacancies in Church schools by relying on practising Anglicans or even any Christians. Indeed, a Roman Catholic school has had to appoint its first non-Roman Catholic head. There are other examples, which I shall not go into, of concerns among the religions community that the position is unsustainable.
	My third objection to the proposals is that they are unnecessary given the exemptions in the EU framework directive, which will come into force by December 2003. Effectively, it bans discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion, age, sexual orientation and disability. It is due to be brought into force in this country by that date, in terms of religion at least, and the Cabinet Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are consulting on how to do that. Some occupational exemptions are relevant and those should provide the protection that hon. Members might feel is required for certain posts in schools. The directive states that discrimination
	"on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristics constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportional."
	One must ask whether teaching mathematics in a state school would lead to a genuine and determining occupational requirement to go to church on Sunday in one's spare time or whether what one really needs is someone who is good at teaching maths.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman refer the Tory party, whose members are sitting alongside him, to the American constitution, which states:
	"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States."
	If that is true of the United States, which is regarded as a liberal and democratic regime, why cannot it be true in this country?

Evan Harris: I leave that question on the record for those who oppose the new clause to answer.
	In the directive, the second occupational exemption to the general rule against discrimination states:
	"Member states may maintain national legislation in force at the date of the adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation . . . in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation's ethos . . .
	Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos."
	That exemption renders unnecessary the stringent provisions of section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act, which deals with people being hired, fired and overlooked for promotion on the grounds of lawful and appropriate private activity. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that sections 58 and 60 are not required in the context of those occupational exemptions.

Malcolm Savidge: May I illustrate the hon. Gentleman's point with a historical anecdote from 1860, when Aberdeen was not quite as religiously tolerant as it is now? We eventually combined our two religious universities; one was Presbyterian, the other Episcopalian. We sacked the professor of physics because he was thought to have the wrong theological views on infralapsarianism or supralapsarianism; he was James Clerk Maxwell.

Evan Harris: That is a fascinating historical example of the sort of thing that may arise. I worry that an expansion of faith schools, particularly in communities where strong religious views are held, may lead to more peril for employees. I am concerned about the Government's view of the EU framework directive. Paragraph 13.12 of their consultation document states:
	"a religious organisation may be able to demonstrate that it is a genuine requirement that all staff—not just senior staff or people with a proselytising function—should belong to the religion concerned, so as to ensure the preservation of the organisation's particular ethos."
	I am concerned that, under section 60, no caretaker's job is safe in a religious school if it is felt that, to maintain the ethos, everyone employed by the school is required to be of a certain religion.
	I have heard nothing about new clause 2 from the Secretary of State, so I urge the Minister, when he replies to the debate, either to provide reassurance or to try to justify the strong provision of section 60 against the need for freedom of belief, freedom of activity and freedom of thought.

Claire Ward: I start by declaring that I am a product of the faith school system. I was educated at numerous Catholic primary schools and a Catholic convent school. I find incredibly offensive the suggestion of some hon. Members that people who attend faith schools, whatever their faith, whether Catholic, Anglican or anything else, leave school prejudiced, intolerant and unable to accept or understand the views of others. My experience and that of many people who have attended faith schools and Catholic schools is that, when we left the school gates, we returned home to a community. We lived in a street and played with the local kids who might, or might not, have gone to the same school, followed the same religion and decided to go to the same church. As children, we got involved in a range of extra-curricular activities and mixed with children of different faiths, nationalities and backgrounds. It is wrong to believe that our faith schools create intolerant communities.

Phil Willis: I take great offence at the hon. Lady's remarks, as, I am sure, does every other Member who has spoken in our debate. Not once have I heard a Member make the points that she says we have made; quite the opposite. Most hon. Members, and certainly those who tabled the new clause, want faith schools to extend their boundaries and open up to others. That is exactly the opposite of her point, and I hope that she withdraws her remarks.

Claire Ward: I certainly do not intend to, as I believe that those who argue for the dilution of faith schools are arguing that there is something wrong with people who are products of the faith school system. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) is not in the Chamber, but he referred to prejudice and intolerance; I take great exception to that, and I know that others will too.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Lady share my experience, which is that faith schools, particularly in London, tend to have an ethnic and religious mix, provide a tolerant and open society within the school and do a much better job of educating children about the diversity of religious beliefs on the planet than non-faith schools?

Claire Ward: I agree. My experience of Catholic schooling is that one of course receives an education based on religion, but one also gains an understanding of other religions—perhaps not in the same depth, but the opportunity exists. We should take the opportunity to encourage faith schools, not just to educate children in their own religion, but to create and promote tolerance and understanding. However, in doing so, we should not weaken the faith school system. New clauses 1 and 18 seek to weaken the status of faith schools.
	I listened carefully to the views of Members who have spoken, and accept that some do not support faith schools and wish that we did not have them. If times were different, and if history could be rewritten, perhaps we would not have faith schools in a wholly secular society. However, we are where we are. Historically, we have had schools of faith, but unfortunately schools of limited faiths. Now we have an opportunity to do something about that.

Colin Challen: I am one of those who would like a secular schooling system. As a secularist, I accept and respect other people's views and beliefs. Surely, it is the role of the state as a secular entity to ensure that all those views and beliefs are protected? Perhaps we can only achieve that through legislation.

Claire Ward: I respect my hon. Friend's views, and respect people who follow different faiths. However, he has a choice; he, or anyone in his position, can decide not to send their children to a school with a particular faith or denomination—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I disagree with hon. Members who argue against that; in the vast majority of cases, and certainly in secondary education, people can choose not to send their children to certain schools.
	We have already heard this evening that where a primary school is the only rural primary school in the area, and may be a Church of England school, it opens its doors and welcomes children from all faiths and no faith. I see no reason why that should change; it should be encouraged wherever possible. However, I strongly object to the idea that that should be written into the Bill, and that there should be a quota. We have heard much about the figure of 25 per cent., but under new clauses 1 and 18 the figure need not be 25 per cent. The percentage of pupils of a particular faith at a faith school could range between 20 and 75 per cent. It would be determined by the local admission authority with only consultation rather than by agreement. That would be wrong.

Jon Owen Jones: I am not sure what the position is in my hon. Friend's constituency, but does she not recognise that there are inner-city constituencies in which it is normal to find that a Church school, particularly a Roman Catholic school, is almost entirely white, and that because of the area in which it is situated, the neighbouring school is largely Asian and black. That situation is neither desirable nor sustainable.

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend may well be right about the circumstances of those schools, but in many cases that is not dictated by the fact that one is a faith school. Schools may have a catchment area or, in the case of primary schools, an intake based on the area that they serve. The local community may be predominantly white or Asian, as is the case in some parts of the country.

Gerald Kaufman: Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), I have looked around the Chamber and I cannot see any hon. Member who represents a more characteristically inner-city constituency than I do. I have a considerable number of faith schools, of which many are Roman Catholic or Church of England. They are not all white, as he characterised them. Although the level of education in my constituency is good and getting better, parents of all religions fight to get their children into the faith schools because they are known to be of a very high standard.

Claire Ward: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We know that in many cases the faith schools have a strong ethos, which is attractive to parents. They also, but not exclusively, produce very good results. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that such schools are not exclusively white. In my community, the Catholic schools have children of Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Irish origin, and children from India, where Catholicism is one of the fastest-growing religions.
	I do not believe that faith schools are wrong to have a strong ethos. That encourages people to want to attend and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so articulately said, it encourages a common bond among those who attend the school. We should encourage such an ethos, but we should also encourage faith schools to diversify and work closely with other schools—schools of other faiths and of no faith. I would encourage faith schools that consider it appropriate in the areas that they serve to increase the intake of children of other faiths or no faith. I hope that the guidance from the Government will encourage opportunities for schools to work together.
	If new clause 18 were introduced, fewer independent schools in the faith sector would decide to move into the maintained sector, because the provision that would restrict the number of pupils of a particular faith in the faith school concerned to 75 per cent., or even 20 or 25 per cent., would not encourage them to do so.
	Many parents who believe strongly that their child should be educated in a faith school but who cannot get their child into a faith school in the maintained sector in their own community feel forced to go to the private sector. Many of them cannot afford to do so. We should not continue to discriminate against parents who feel so strongly about their faith by failing to encourage independent faith schools to come into the maintained sector.
	We should expand the number of faith schools right across the alternative, ethnic and minority faiths that exist in the United Kingdom. I have a significant Muslim community in Watford. I know that over the years there have been many representations from some within the community who want a school that clearly reflects their faith. I also know that there are alternative views, and I respect that. People should have the choice. If the demand exists for a Muslim school in Watford, the local community must decide. We must have the opportunity to discuss the matter as a community, but we will not have such an opportunity if there are not more faith schools in the maintained sector.

Kevin Brennan: On equality and people from less well-off backgrounds getting into faith schools, does my hon. Friend agree that somebody who supports a secular and comprehensive system should vote against the clause, as it would institutionalise the creaming off by faith schools of the most talented pupils in our comprehensive schools, and probably exclude the children of the faith of the school from the poorest backgrounds?

Claire Ward: I did not say at the outset that I supported secular education. I said that had we been in a different position many centuries ago, we might not have the faith school system that we have now, and that there are those who believe that we should have had a secular system.
	Finally, I want to raise the issue of Hindu schools in the context of new clause 18. At present, we have no Hindu schools—none in the maintained sector, and as far as I am aware, none in the independent sector, despite a considerable demand for the establishment of one in part of north-west and north London. If a Hindu school decided that it wished to be a maintained school, Hinduism would be the only mainstream religion to be discriminated against by the 75 per cent. quota introduced by new clause 18. Every other religion that has been discussed this evening—Catholic, Church of England, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Greek Orthodox—already has at least one school in the maintained system. If new clause 18 were introduced, the Hindus could challenge it on the ground of discrimination, as theirs would be the only religion to be faced with a quota system for its schools. I would be interested to hear how my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would deal with that situation.

Frank Dobson: If my hon. Friend has been listening to the debate, she will know that the Church of England proposes the establishment of 100 additional secondary schools to which new clause 18 would apply, so I do not think that she can single out the Hindus. As far as I can see, she is erecting a problem that does not exist. So far, I have not heard from anyone from any Hindu group who wants a Hindu school. Every Hindu group with which I have had connections has said that it does not want a Hindu school and is happy with the system as it is.

Claire Ward: I can tell my right hon. Friend that that is not the case and that representations are being made for a Hindu school. I accept that the more Muslim and Sikh schools that exist in the maintained sector, the more that demand will grow, but none the less, the demand is already there. My right hon. Friend referred to the 100 additional Church of England schools, but he misses my point, which is that the Church of England already has schools in the maintained sector, while the Hindu religion has no such schools. If it decided to enter the maintained sector, it would be the only mainstream religion to be discriminated against in terms of the whole of its religious education being controlled by a quota of a maximum of 75 per cent. I believe that that would be open to challenge in the courts.
	You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not support new clauses 1 and 18. I believe that it is right that we should extend the opportunities for an increase in the number of faith schools to more religions and that they should be encouraged by the Government's guidelines to work closely with other schools of faith and no faith, in the belief that religions promote in society the basics of good citizenship, values and standards. Of course, that is not to say that that is exclusive or that those who do not follow a faith do not have those values, but I believe that those are the core elements of all our main religions in this country and that it is for the good of our society that we see those values extended and promoted.

Mark Hoban: It will perhaps come as no surprise that I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) has said, as she and I had a similar education. It was not exactly the same, however, as although we both attended Catholic primary schools, I attended not a Catholic convent but a Catholic comprehensive school.
	We have heard many hon. Members refer to the ethos of a school, and I want to spend some time talking about the nature of that ethos in the context of the new clauses. The ethos of a school is not something that one can bottle, sell and spray in a new school. An ethos is created by the people who participate in the school—the teachers, pupils, parents and management—and by the curriculum that they follow. I feel that the new clause ignores the importance of creating an ethos that comes from the pupils who are admitted and the values to which they subscribe. A school's ethos depends on the shared set of values of the people who participate in what it does.
	I am not sure that a school can have the ethos of a faith school if it admits only 20 per cent. of its pupils on the basis of the faith that they share. I do not believe that that is possible. Some schools may decide that they can create the ethos of a Church or other faith school while accepting such a low proportion of pupils from a particular faith. However, it is important that it is the responsibility of the school and its parents to decide the appropriate mixture of admissions. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of Members of Parliament to tell schools how they should develop the religious composition of their pupil intake. Nor indeed—I refer back to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—should we tell schools how to appoint or select their teachers on the basis of faith. For a school to be a genuine faith school, it must not be merely a brand with no brand values. We need to ensure that the values of those who participate in the school reinforce the values of the faith that it is meant to represent.
	That is why it is right for us to oppose new clause 1 and allow schools the right to develop their own character to reflect the faith that they are there to work alongside. The Secretary of State described very well the situation of a Catholic school in terms of the relationship between the school, its pupils, the Church and the community. That characterisation illustrates the point well, as there is a mutually sustaining relationship between a faith school and the community that it serves.
	I object to new clause 18 because, in particular, I do not think that it is right to deny to Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims the right to set up schools that support their faiths. It is wrong simply to draw a line in the sand, as the new clause proposes, and prevent people in those religions from setting up schools that have the right to determine their admissions policies and characters. Indeed, as somebody who has benefited from a faith school and a faith education, I find that proposal especially offensive. We should allow other religions to set up schools. New clause 18 would do nothing to promote the equality of esteem in which we should hold all religions—it would simply reinforce the status quo and not address the concerns that hon. Members who support the new clauses have so far expressed.
	I should like to pick up on some of the comments about inclusivity and the assertion that faith schools are not inclusive. Faith schools can improve inclusivity in other ways than by changing their admissions policy. Recently, I spoke to a group of Muslims in my constituency who would like a Muslim school to serve the people of south-east Hampshire, although they recognise that to be inclusive, they would have to reach out to other faith groups and promote dialogue on moral and religious issues so that both parties to that dialogue could understand the values of others. I believe that that would create a great deal of the tolerance and understanding that we need in the aftermath of the events of 11 September.

Roger Berry: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that that dialogue would be much more productive and much easier within the same school?

Mark Hoban: I accept that there is a point to that argument, but somebody who is confident in their own religion and has been educated within it will have a much stronger position—a position that allows one to argue from a point of view not of hostility, but of informed comment and discussion—than they would gain in a school of no faith at all.

Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments that we have just heard display a lack of comprehension of the strength that faith schools can bring to the understanding of different religions? My experience is that faith schools are better than any others at building cross-religious understanding, but I think that there is a lack of understanding of that point in the Chamber.

Mark Hoban: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I met the Muslim community in my constituency as part of an evening in Ramadan to which a canon from the Anglican cathedral in Portsmouth had been invited to discuss interfaith issues. Those discussions do not tend to take place in a local pub or café. On the occasion that I mentioned, they happened during a meeting of a religious group in an exclusive place. By demonstrating that they could start a dialogue in the Jamaat, Muslims showed that they could also do that in their schools. I therefore do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry).

Brian Cotter: I simply want to attest to the fact that the perception of Catholic and other Church schools is sometimes wrong. I attended Catholic schools and I studied many different religions as well as Karl Marx and his manifesto. I was encouraged to do that, and I have ended up on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Such an education did not therefore do me much harm.

Mark Hoban: I shall leave others to ponder the long-term effects of the hon. Gentleman's education.

Roger Berry: The hon. Gentleman asserts that interfaith dialogue is easier between two faith schools, but not a shred of evidence has been produced to support that. It is a great insult to the majority of non-faith maintained schools that promote interfaith dialogue to suggest that they cannot do that as well as faith schools.

Mark Hoban: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but I am not yet convinced by it. Those who speak with confidence about their faith can enter into dialogue more comfortably than those who have no deep understanding of a faith. I accept that some non-faith schools promote a dialogue. The original point was that faith schools can be exclusive, but faith schools can be inclusive by encouraging dialogue between different faith schools.

John Burnett: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that the new clauses discriminate against faith schools, but not non-faith schools? The central tenets of the faiths that we have discussed today are understanding, co-operation, generosity and tolerance.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is right. Faith schools can be shown to be inclusive because the faiths share the values that he mentioned. They can be inclusive by reaching out to other faith schools.
	Let us consider social inclusivity. The Catholic school that I attended was in Durham. Its catchment area was more socially inclusive than that of the nearest state comprehensive school, which served a predominantly middle-class area. My Catholic comprehensive school served not only the centre of Durham but the former coalfield communities around the city. Although faith schools may have a single religion, they admit pupils of other religions and can be socially inclusive.

George Osborne: Another example of a faith school that has a wide catchment area is the London Oratory, which accepts pupils from all over London.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that his children attended that faith school. I understand that its catchment area covers children who do not live far from here. Faith schools' catchment areas can be incredibly wide and attract pupils from diverse backgrounds.

Colin Challen: Does not that comment support new clause 1? If faith schools can attract such diversity, they will have no problem in achieving a target of 25 per cent.

Mark Hoban: What happens when faith schools are oversubscribed? That applies to many of them. If the new clause was accepted, many more parents who want their children to attend a faith school would be disappointed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made a thoughtful speech and referred to circumstances in which a local education authority could be taken over by religious fanatics who would change the character of the schools. Perhaps many of us believe that that is far-fetched.

Chris Grayling: They might even go Labour.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend must know what was in my mind. I know of a local education authority that would probably want to use new clause 1 to change the character of schools. Southampton city council is along the coast from my constituency. An article that was conveniently timed to coincide with Christmas stated that the manifesto that Labour councillors were due to draw up would oppose Church schools
	"as a matter of socialist principle."
	They could use new clause 1 to effect their policy and significantly change the character of the 11 existing Church of England and Catholic schools in Southampton by implementing the rule in new clause 1 to allow only 20 per cent. of pupils to be selected on the basis of their faith.
	A genuine threat exists to the many Church schools. I have shown that through the example of Southampton's Labour city council. I also fear for Church schools in areas that the Liberal Democrats control if new clause 1 is accepted. With honourable exceptions, many Liberal Democrat Members have opposed allowing Church schools to define their character.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Members who have expressed anxiety about the intolerance of one religion towards another demonstrate intolerance of religion per se?

Mark Hoban: I am grateful for that point. I do not want to probe too deeply the motives of the hon. Members who have tabled the new clauses and spoken in favour of them. Perhaps they show an intolerance of others' views that they have not so far expressed openly.
	New clause 1 puts faith schools at risk. New clause 18 would preserve the status quo and prevent those of other faiths who wished to set up new faith schools from doing that. It would also prevent the expansion of Church of England secondary schools.
	New clause 1—together with new clause 2, about which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke earlier—is aimed at changing significantly the ethos of faith schools and interfering in how they are run, but it is not the role of Parliament to tell schools how they should admit pupils and select staff.

Geraint Davies: I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that more and more purely selective faith schools could lead to social segregation, intolerance and a distortion in local education choice. In my constituency, there are examples of people who have had to move house to move away from a faith school because they have no faith, to be near to one of the better schools. That happens in any case, but the more faith schools we have, the more such distortions will occur.
	I recognise the need to balance the right of schools to have their own separate identity and ethos—if there is local demand for that—with the choice for local children in terms of access to the best schools. I represent a multicultural constituency, and it is not apparent to me, by any stretch of the imagination, that local Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or, indeed, Christians want their own schools. Religious people often do not want religious schools; they might, however, want schools that simply have a leading ethos—a Christian ethos, for instance—rather than an overwhelming, 100 per cent. religious environment.
	The key issue that I want to bring to the debate is the distinction between two categories of faith schools. It is a distinction that has not been brought out so far, and it is critical to the shaping of the social and educational future of this country. The two types of faith school available are those that are voluntary aided and those that are voluntary controlled. I have already tried to make this point in interventions on the Secretary of State and other of my hon. Friends.
	I shall outline the difference between the two types of school. In voluntary-aided faith schools, the governing body is controlled by the relevant religion, the governors are the employers of the teachers, and the diocese or religion can dictate 100 per cent. preference in terms of selection. In exchange for that, it has to pay 15 per cent. towards the capital costs of the school, although that will subsequently be reduced to 10 per cent. Nearly all Catholic secondary schools are voluntary aided. In the Anglican tradition, nearly 60 per cent. of Church of England secondary schools and 20 per cent. of primary schools are voluntary aided.
	In contrast, we have the voluntary controlled faith schools. I believe that, in promoting more and more faith schools, the Government should introduce regulations—or at least issue guidance—to demonstrate that they would prefer faith schools to be voluntary controlled. In such schools, there is a clear religious ethos—they are faith schools—and a number of governors are of the religion in question. That religion is also represented on the appointments panel, so that the head teacher and senior staff reflect the religion and ethos of the school.
	The admissions policy of voluntary-controlled schools, however, does not require the intake to be 100 per cent. based on their religion. Instead, it reflects the normal local education authority procedure. That means that such schools reflect the community that they serve. In a largely Muslim community, for example, the majority of children in such a school might be Muslim. Through natural migration and parental choice, individual schools can develop a religious leadership and ethos without it being completely of one type—in many cases, that means one racial type as well as one religious type. About 40 per cent. of Church of England secondary schools are voluntary controlled. They welcome children of other denominations, but their leadership is clearly Church of England. Eighty per cent. of Church of England primary schools are voluntary controlled, rather than voluntary aided.
	The plan for the extra 100 faith schools must embrace other denominations, and if they were voluntary controlled, the Churches would take a leading role in running them while allowing them to remain accessible to local children. In the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, he mentioned a village in which there were two secular schools. He said that if that were changed to one secular school and one faith school, that would reduce the choice available to local children, in that only one school would be available to them if they did not support that faith.
	However, if the faith school in that example were voluntary controlled, as opposed to voluntary aided, that would not be the case. Local people could use either school, because there would be open access. However, in such a scenario, members of the community with that faith would naturally migrate to the school that denominated itself religious with open access, and that leadership would be reflected in those who chose to apply. Anyone could apply, but, in practice, the same choices would remain and such problems would not arise. They would arise, however, in a voluntary-aided school.
	The distinction between voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools is critical to the shape of education choices and possible social segregation. Many of my constituents, be they Christian, Hindu or of another denomination, might want to attend a school that has a religious ethos, but is not overwhelmingly religious. For example, some 90 per cent. of students in a voluntary-controlled Church of England school in Tower Hamlets, of which the Bishop of Blackburn's wife happens to be the head, are Muslim.
	That shows that the complexion of faith schools can alter through demographic change in the local catchment area. The students of that school are clearly happy to attend, and it is no surprise that the Bishop of Blackburn takes the Anglican view that the Government should introduce regulations to prevent 100 per cent. religious preference in any given school. There is support for Anglican schools as well as support for more general inclusion.
	Hon. Members have referred to the difficulties in Oldham and Bradford. Oldham has a voluntary-aided Anglican school that is 100 per cent. Anglican and 100 per cent. white, but Bradford does not. In Bradford, the issue is housing segregation. There are complicated problems, which relate to segregation and society, and it is too simplistic to say that they all derive from the schooling system, but, given the congruence of faith and ethnicity in schools, the segregation of schoolchildren clearly does not always help communities to gel.
	On voluntary control versus voluntary aid, no particular demand exists for a big increase in the number of voluntary-controlled Catholic schools. The demand comes from Anglicans, who have asked for an extra 100—they are happy with the principle of voluntary control.
	I press the Government to signal strongly that, in welcoming new faith schools, they have a clear preference for voluntary-controlled schools. Such a system would preserve status: it would not change all-Catholic schools or, for that matter, any others, given that we are discussing new schools. It would enable Anglicans to do what they want, ensure local access for local people to the school of their choice and enable Sikhs and Hindus, for example, to attend Muslim schools alongside Christians. It would also enable the establishment of new Muslim schools and schools of other religious traditions.

Mark Hoban: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments for some 10 minutes. Is he for or against the new clause?

Geraint Davies: My position is clear. The Government should state a preference for voluntary-controlled schools, which offer completely open access, rather than voluntary-aided schools. That is the way forward. I do not support the new clause. I fear that we are in danger of manufacturing artificially defined quotas that in time will not reflect local demand that will change as the ethnicity and demography of communities change. Whatever figure is chosen—50 per cent., 20 per cent., 70 per cent.—may become the wrong figure as a result of such change.
	I am making what could be seen as a much more radical suggestion. I suggest that a school should reflect the community that it serves—that, while having a religious leadership, it should allow admission according to the normal conditions of local education authorities. Such an arrangement would give a child living next door to a school whose religion he or she did not share a good chance of going there.
	It is clear from this debate, and from the wider debate in the country, that the problem we are discussing is enormous and prompts enormous concern. Some may think that examples drawn from Bradford, Burnley or Northern Ireland are not relevant, but we all know that they have some bearing on our discussion. The Government could accommodate ethos, culture, religious leadership and new faith schools without requiring everyone to belong to one faith, which would inevitably lead to discrimination at the margin.
	The Government should regulate to make such schools voluntarily controlled, or at least signal by means of guidance their support for the establishment of schools on that basis where there is local demand. If schools end up representing one faith 100 per cent., that is fine. One of the deficiencies of the new clause is its failure to provide for the possibility of growth and contraction of that proportion according to local demand.
	As has been pointed out, Lord Denning has said that the Church of England wants more inclusion in the 100 new faith schools. The Muslim Education Trust and the Archbishop of Canterbury want it as well, and the MORI poll implies that others want the same. There should be a balance. Religions should have the right to establish new faith schools if there is local demand, but children should have the right to choose between local schools.
	The Government should make it clear that voluntary control is the preferred option. After all, our children's education will shape the society of the future. I feel that we should celebrate Britain as a community of communities by establishing more faith schools, but also making them voluntary controlled.

Vincent Cable: I support the aims of the new clause, but profoundly disagree with the proposals for compulsion and quota, which strike me as both inappropriate and, probably, counterproductive. I expect that I am among a minority of Liberal Democrats who do not support the proposal in its current form.
	I ought to make my position clear. Many have opposed the new clause from a religious standpoint, but I do not. My background is extremely eclectic. I was born a Baptist, went to Methodist Sunday school, converted to Quakerism, married a Roman Catholic and, in a spirit of British compromise, brought up my children as Anglicans and sent them to a non-denominational school. My late wife was Indian as well as Catholic, and most of my in-laws are Hindus. I therefore hold no brief for any particular denomination. Indeed, my background has encouraged my belief in the virtues of inclusivity, provided it is achieved in the right way.
	I was given a good example on Tuesday night, when I was invited to give prizes at a local Catholic secondary school for girls. It is an independent school, so the Bill does not apply to it, but the principle is the same. Although the school's ethos was clearly Catholic, many of the girls receiving prizes were Hindus and Sikhs. The head of the science department, sitting on the platform, was a Muslim lady—as was advertised by her shawl and headscarf—and was clearly proud of that background.
	It was clear that that school believed in inclusiveness and actively promoted it. It worked because the Church, the priests and the nuns who were there believed in it. Such a system could not be made to work in an environment where compulsion and obligation applied.
	Two specific issues have reverberated in this debate. One relates to what freedom of choice is in this environment. The point has been made in several effective interventions that there is no absolute principle of freedom of choice, because when one person exercises their freedom of choice to go to a denominational school, if the school is over-subscribed, that may subtract from the freedom of choice of someone else. However, those two freedoms are not the same; they are not symmetrical. They are different in seriousness.
	It is a major commitment to send a child to a religious school, particularly as we live in a highly secular society. Often, parents have a strong wish to send their child to such a school. One cannot compare that with the sense of grievance that an atheist may feel because their child cannot get into the Catholic school next door.
	As an MP, I have yet to encounter a non-believer who has a grievance because their child cannot attend a religious school. If people did have that grievance, I am sure that I would know about it. My constituency is very education-conscious. It is at the top of the Government's league tables. On the top of the top of the league tables are the denominational schools. People care passionately about schooling. I am sure that if people had that grievance they would have come to me. However, I am aware of the strong wish of people of faith to send their children to denominational schools in Twickenham. As it happens, my council, which is a Liberal Democrat council, provides additional Catholic and Anglican schools under the private finance initiative to enable that choice to be made.
	The issue of freedom of choice is complex. Absolute fundamentalist principles cannot be applied to it, but it is important and it works in favour of the faith schools system.
	The second issue is divisiveness. Perhaps in a London suburb, one does not experience religious conflict in the way one does in a northern mill town, but I draw on another example. If any city in Britain approximates to the conditions of Northern Ireland it is Glasgow. I lived there for some years. I was active in political life and in the big debate there about the future of faith schools.
	Many people argued in similar terms to those of the new clause. They said that faith schools should be phased out or diluted. They were afraid of divisions in society. I lived in Glasgow when the Northern Ireland troubles were starting. People argued that unless we got rid of faith schools, blood would run in the streets of the city.
	At first sight, those people had a compelling case. The city was divided 50:50—there were Catholic and non-denominational schools. There is a lot of intolerance. I have been to lots of old firm games. At the end where Union jacks are waved, one can listen to religious ditties on the sex life of the Pope for several hours, which are designed to offend the people at the other end of the ground. Indeed the religion that is taught is far from liberal. My late wife taught in a Catholic comprehensive. She was regularly reprimanded for trying to introduce Cromwell and Karl Marx to the history curriculum, and told to stick to the saints. It was not a liberal tradition that was at stake.
	None the less, many of the predictions did not materialise. There has been no religious violence in Glasgow in the wake of the Irish troubles—London has experienced such violence. It has not happened in Glasgow for a good reason: in many ways it is a very integrated society. People are integrated through residential accommodation, work and personal relationships, and there is no tangible sectarian divide.
	I was initially critical of the faith schools, but I came to believe that they perform an extremely important social function. As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, they have provided a valuable mechanism for social inclusion. The Irish immigrant working class found a way, through the city's faith schools—I believe that the same is true of Liverpool and other cities—of getting into the professions and becoming part of society. Many of the arguments about social division are unfounded.

Ashok Kumar: The hon. Gentleman eloquently argues the case for faith schools in Glasgow, but there we are talking about one religion, Christianity, so the gap is not so wide. Now we have to think about Muslim schools, Sikh schools, Hindu schools—not one religion, but several. The gap between those is much wider. My fear is that, given what is happening in some parts of northern England, there is a danger of segregation, rather than the partial integration that he describes in Glasgow.

Vincent Cable: There is clearly a division. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) made the point several times that religious division can combine with racial division, and that would worry me, too, because I believe in racial equality and integration. If the issue is race, it is not only a Muslim/white issue, because there is racial segregation between black and white Christians.
	Do those who believe in applying quotas in a denominational context also believe in applying them in a racial one, simply to reduce racial segregation? In countries where that has happened, notably the United States—it has also happened in India in relation to caste—it has generated an enormous amount of hatred and resentment, and the use of prescription has been wholly counterproductive.

Caroline Flint: I attended St. Mary's Church of England school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Following his point about racial segregation, does he agree that there is a danger, given the events in the north-west last summer, in treating faith schools exclusively as the problem, while ignoring all the other issues to do with people's confidence about their cultural identity and religion; and that in our multicultural society we should place value on all people's cultural faiths and beliefs and not only those that have dominated this country for so many centuries? Is it not important to consider the wider issues about why dissent between ethnic groups within communities occurs, rather than blaming faith and faith schools in a knee-jerk reaction?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We were enjoined earlier on not to draw international comparisons, but there is an interesting comparison between this country and France, which has very alienated, segregated Muslim minorities in very large groups, even though the schooling system has been entirely based on secular French republican principles. The problems there have nothing to do with how the school system is configured.
	The hon. Lady made a very penetrating intervention a few minutes ago when she said that many of the objectives of the supporters of the new clause could be better achieved in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) corrected her in part, but it is certainly the case that there are many different ways in which the state or LEAs, through the inspectorate, control of the curriculum, and requirements for teacher training and qualifications, can exercise influence over the quality of schools. That is a much better way of dealing with the problems.
	The Government are very inventive in generating new categories of schools and rewarding them with status and money. Perhaps in areas where segregation is developing to a dangerous extent in the school system, they could pilot a scheme whereby a faith school that is particularly inclusive could be recognised and rewarded in a positive way. That approach would be much more likely to succeed than one that is based on coercion and quota.

Clive Efford: I rise to support the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). In doing so, I want to make my position clear. Some hon. Members have been disingenuous in suggesting that those who support the new clauses are against faith schools. I am not against faith schools. I spent my early school years in a Catholic school.
	I was brought up as a Catholic and, although I have no faith now, I also spent some time as a governor of a Catholic school in my constituency. I was able to provide a great deal of help and assistance to the school in that period. I was pleased to do so, and would be pleased to help again in the future, if the occasion arose.
	Some of the interventions in the debate seem to me to have missed the point. The debate is about the education provided by faith schools, not faith itself. When people exercise choice and send their children to faith schools, they do so after considering the quality of the education offered by the school, not only the faith to which it belongs. Some very well-heeled individuals bus their children halfway across London to faith schools. They do not do that, in the first instance, because the schools are religious. They do it because the performance of the schools in question is very high. We must bear that in mind during this discussion.
	We have been told that a 25 per cent. quota for faith schools would undermine the ethos of those schools. In an intervention, we were told that the Catholic authorities recommend that 10 per cent. of pupils in Catholic schools should come from non-Catholic or non-religious backgrounds. If the faiths are making it clear that they would accept and welcome pupils from different backgrounds, why should we stand in their way? How can we argue that that is against the ethos of those schools?

Paul Goodman: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, for many faith schools, there is a difference between taking 10 per cent. of pupils from different backgrounds, and the much larger proportion—up to 80 per cent., if I read new clause 1 rightly—that is being proposed? In the first instance, the proportion of non-faith children would be a small minority, but some faith schools would not be able to maintain their ethos with minority intakes that are much larger.

Clive Efford: The new clauses propose that a consultation process be held if the proportion involved goes beyond 25 per cent. Local accountability is a factor, and a point that has been overlooked throughout this debate is that LEAs are accountable to their local communities.
	If an LEA or a school organisation committee acts outside the interests of a faith school or of the community that it represents, people will be able to take account of that in future elections. They will be able to make representations through the faith schools, which also belong to the school organisation committees, to ensure that local accountability is preserved when decisions are taken. I therefore do not think that the fears described by the hon. Gentleman are well founded.
	We have heard that religious schools perform better than other schools. I see no evidence for that contention. Some excellent religious schools perform extremely well, but yesterday's Ofsted report stated that the 25 per cent. of all schools that are religious-based make up 30 per cent. of the top-performing schools.
	I do not suggest for a moment that the secondary school of which I was one of the governors adheres to the policy, but all hon. Members know that selection takes place in many religious schools. Sometimes it takes place before pupils arrive at the door of the school applying for a place. The selection takes place in the churches and religious institutes where the priest—or whoever it might be—gives a pupil a supporting statement to prove that that child is a practising member of the congregation, and that application is being made for attendance at a school on that basis.
	Selection is clearly a factor in the performance of those schools. I reject the idea that, if those schools were to take 25 per cent. of their pupils from the general community around them, it would affect or undermine their performance. I do not accept that. The schools that I know about, which are very good and provide an excellent education for their pupils, would not be threatened by the requirement that they take 25 per cent. of pupils who are not of their denomination.
	The issue of choice has been raised. What we have heard constantly from hon. Members who oppose the new clauses shows that choice means exclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) asked how much choice there is for parents and children who live near a denominational school, but who do not share that denomination. Where is their choice? They can only choose a school outside their community because they are excluded from the nearest school. That is not choice.
	If we really supported choice, we should support the new clauses. They would let parents decide whether they want to send their child to a faith school or to another school. It would then be for the education authority to determine whether the 25 per cent. quota should apply if there were not enough applicants.

Mark Hoban: There has been much debate about choice and the geographical proximity of the pupil to the school. Does the hon. Gentleman think that parents in my constituency, who want their child to attend a Catholic school, for example, are denied choice by virtue of the fact that the nearest Catholic secondary school is either 10 miles down the road in Portsmouth or 10 miles down the road in Southampton?

Clive Efford: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's point. If people do not live close to a school of the denomination of their choice, perhaps their choice should be whether they move closer to the school.
	If someone is part of a community, but the nearest school is not of their denomination and applies 100 per cent. religiosity in its entrance policy, that person is excluded from their local school. That is not choice—it is the prevention of choice.

Caroline Flint: The issue of parental choice is difficult. I have many cases—I am sure that my hon. Friend does, too—of people who apply to their local school, which is non-denominational but still oversubscribed, so the LEA tells them that their children must attend their second or third choice. Arguments about choice are difficult—they also apply to the non-denominational sector: children cannot attend their closest school under the current arrangements.

Clive Efford: I fully accept that point. My education authority is bordered by one that applies selection in many of its secondary schools, so the problem is acute for me. Many parents turn up at my surgery at the time of secondary transfer because they have not been given their first choice. The child has taken what we call the "Bexley test" and has failed to get into the school they want, so they come back to my area. Those parents have a perception of the quality of the education their child will receive. That is the point of my argument. When schools are oversubscribed—whether or not they are religious—it is because of the quality of the education they offer, not because of their faith.
	I realise that the debate has gone on for a long time and many of the issues that I raised have been touched on before, but I have one brief point to make. I represent a community that has been ravaged by racism. I represent the constituency of Eltham, where Stephen Lawrence was murdered, and I am extremely concerned as to the direction we are taking as regards segregation in our schools.
	I organise a community group which meets regularly. We discuss racism and we tackle the local authority, the education authority and others on what they are doing to challenge it—especially among young people. When some school inspectors attended our meeting, they told us that in many parts of my constituency—as in many inner-city areas—there are exclusively white communities, and almost no ethnic minority pupils in the schools.
	One of the problems was the children's lack of experience of people of other faiths or ethnic minority groups because they were not mixing with such people on a day-to-day basis. The terms that they use for people of other races and their attitude towards them is affected because they do not come across people from different backgrounds in their daily lives. By encouraging more faith schools without encouraging more integration, we would be pouring petrol on the problem.
	My local education authority has done much to deal with the problem and I commend it for that. I do not want the Bill to put into reverse that excellent work, albeit for the best of intentions. That is why I will support the new clause.

Edward Leigh: First, I apologise for not attending the earlier part of this debate. I had to chair a Committee Upstairs. I wanted to speak because I feel strongly about this subject.
	This is a difficult issue and I hesitated before speaking as there are many shades to the argument. I always try to reach out to Labour Back Benchers, but I must make an admission that may not make me very popular with many of them. I am a middle-class resident of Westminster and Member of Parliament who sends his child across two boroughs to the London Oratory. I also send a child across another borough boundary—

Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Edward Leigh: I have hardly started, but I will.

Clive Efford: Does the hon. Gentleman send his child to the London Oratory because of religion or because of the quality of the education there?

Edward Leigh: In these debates, it is important to speak not only in the abstract but from personal experience. Speeches that I have heard in this Chamber over the years have been all the better for being spoken from personal experience. I am trying not to make a debating point but to share my personal experiences as a parent who cares passionately about the education of his children and who, because of the nature of his job, has to live in central London.
	Most state schools in central London are simply unacceptable. That is the honest truth that we have to face. It is not a comfortable point of view, but one must be honest about this and middle-class parents—in fact, all parents in central London—fight to get their children into Church schools. It is distressing to attend parents' meetings, as I have done at Our Lady of Victories, Lady Margaret's, which is a Church of England school—I did not manage to get my daughter into that school—and the London Oratory, and to see literally hundreds of people of all types from all social classes who are desperate to get their children into the schools. We must ask ourselves why.
	I have talked to many teachers and head teachers at those schools. A terrible burden is placed on them every year when they have to reject many excellent children. These are not just middle-class people trying to cheat the system but people from all social classes, and they have one thing in common: they want the best for their children. They are fighting to get them into the Church schools and they cannot. That is the problem.
	Why are those Church schools so good? There is huge objective evidence to show that they are good. The Times Educational Supplement survey showed that one in four of the best schools in the country is a Church school. We know that they are over-subscribed, but they are good. They are so good because of their ethos, which is based on discipline, traditional standards and, yes, on religion. It is based on all those things that parents are so desperate for, so they fight to get their children into those schools.
	The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is sincere about what he wants. As one parent to another I must tell him that the Catholic schools in central London, which are what I know about, are already hugely over-subscribed by Catholics. Many sincere, religious people cannot get their children into them. They are turned away, which is deeply upsetting. Their children have to go to secular schools or to schools that do not share their values. If new clause 1 is passed, many more of them would be turned away. That is simply unfair. For that reason, if for no other, I cannot support it.

Colin Challen: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe in market forces and the possibility that if there is too much demand, capacity will rise to meet it?

Edward Leigh: Church primary schools in central London, or schools such as the London Oratory, cannot expand; physically, there is no room. They are hugely over- subscribed by people who share that faith.

Brian Cotter: rose—

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: No.
	It has been said that a lot of the parents with children at those schools are insincere. It is true that some people will deliberately go to Our Lady of Victories church, Kensington high street, Sunday after Sunday, although they are not very religious, and make themselves known to the priest because they know that that is how they get their children into a really good primary school. However, those hon. Members who support new clause 1 should accept that there are many sincere people who want a religious ethos for their children. They have a fundamental right of freedom of association. If they want to send their children to a school with a strong Catholic, Jewish or Church of England ethos, they should be allowed to do so.

Brian Cotter: I want to add to what the hon. Gentleman says and to correct it a little. It is not only middle-class families who look for schools with an ethos and discipline. I refer to a council estate in Weston- super-Mare where people are very disadvantaged. I was surprised, but they are determined to get their children into a school where prayers are said in the mornings. Lots of people, not just the middle class, seek the ethos and discipline that may be found in Church schools, but may also be found elsewhere.

Edward Leigh: That is the point that I am trying to make. I should have thought that Labour Members would be especially anxious to have schools with a broad social mix and that they would want schools in central London and the inner cities to which people of all types want to send their children.
	From my experience, schools such as Our Lady of Victories primary school have a complete social mix. There are people from the poorest families, immigrant families and many people on very low incomes, and people who have recently come to this country from Portugal, Spain, Latin America and all over Europe. There is a great mix of languages. The school is not based in a posh, suburban area. It is not based in the middle of Twickenham, which is a desirable area. I make no criticism of the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). It is in the middle of London, and it draws its children from every social class. Some of those people face tremendous difficulties, but they fight to get their children into that school because of its ethos. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is sincere, but if new clause 1 were passed, the ethos of that school would be so watered down that that beacon of light, which attracts people from all classes from all over London, could be put out. I know that he does not want that to happen, but that is what he is in danger of doing.

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend is speaking in a personal and honest way. Does he agree that a large number of parents who do not believe in any particular religion want their children to be brought up in a context of absolute values? It would be wrong for any hon. Member to sneer at them as hypocrites for wanting that; they are entitled to our respect, as he says.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. There are genuinely religious people who want their children to go to religious schools. There are people who may not be religious but who want to send their children to schools were people believe in the absolute values to which my hon. Friend refers, and they should not be sneered at.

David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman seems directly to contradict the rest of his argument. If he is saying that there are people who do not have any particular religious beliefs but who desperately want their children to go to a faith school because of its ethos, the only way he can achieve that is by voting for new clause 1.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my argument. The reason why many Church schools in otherwise difficult areas are so over-subscribed is their religious ethos. Although many of the people who are trying to get their children into those schools may not be religious, they respect the ethos that has created them. The real danger of the new clause is that many schools in those difficult areas would start to lose that ethos. That may not happen in all cases, but it may happen in enough cases to make us pause and worry. One should not try to destroy the best. One must allow the best to continue, and try to bring others on behind them. I passionately believe in that.
	We are perhaps not being honest with ourselves in this debate. There is no doubt that many Church of England schools and Catholic schools, which have been around for a long time, are inclusive. They are deeply embedded in the culture and history of our country and are not narrow-minded. People are tripping carefully around a subtext to this debate, because it is a highly sensitive issue—the problem of Muslim schools. People are not being entirely honest about that. I am happy with the thought of Muslim schools. However, those who want to set up Muslim schools must be as determined as those who run Jewish, Catholic and Church of England schools to be part of the wider community. Those who wish to set up Muslim schools must not force their children into a tiny, religiously based community in which they are cut off from people of other religions. I sincerely mean it when I say that that does not happen in Catholic schools.

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I know that the hon. Lady feels strongly about this issue, but what I have described does not happen in the Catholic schools and Church of England schools that I know. Their teachers are careful to talk to their pupils about other religions, to be fair and not to be dismissive about others' beliefs, and to make sure that their pupils are part of the wider community.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the strength of the established religious schools would disappear if the new clause were passed and a mere 20 per cent. of non-religious children or children of different religions entered them. He is now arguing entirely the opposite case with regard to the possible creation of Muslim schools—that they cannot be exclusive with regard to children who do not share their religion.

Edward Leigh: I was not saying that at all. If someone wants to set up a school with 100 per cent. Muslim pupils, that is a fundamental right of freedom of association. We should not deny people that right just because they want to be in the maintained sector. People have a right to set up schools with an ethos in which they believe—there should be a range of schools in the maintained sector as in the independent sector—and we should not deny Muslims such a right. I am simply trying to make the point that, when such schools are set up—I have no doubt that they will be—they should be aware of the vital importance, despite being 100 per cent. Muslim, of integrating with the rest of the community. That is a point with which I hope nobody in the House should disagree.

Ashok Kumar: Did the hon. Gentleman believe in setting up Muslim schools when the Conservative party was in government?

Edward Leigh: I am trying to deal with this point seriously and be fair to all sides. Personally, I have had a worry about Muslim schools for many years, for the reasons that I have been talking about. On the one hand, people have the right to have schools—freedom of association is a fundamental right—but can we be absolutely sure, once the school has been set up, that it will ensure that its pupils are aware of the history of the nation and of the wider community? We have been assured in this debate that times have moved on, that we have a mature democracy, and that people who want to create such schools will do precisely that. I am happy with that. I am simply saying that we should leave the schools that we have alone. Do not mess them around or impose quotas on them. Let parents and teachers get on with running the schools that they want. However, once we have those schools, let us ensure that they are aware of their wider responsibilities.

David Chaytor: After nearly six hours of debate it is difficult to bring anything new to the arguments but I shall do my best.
	I support the amendments but in the full knowledge that the subject is complex. The passionate debate and the heated views of hon. Members on both sides of the House has demonstrated that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) have done the House and the country a service by confronting the issue. It is not merely about the technicality of school admissions policies, but about the much deeper and profounder issues of social exclusion, the cohesiveness of our society—our urban areas in particular—and the fundamental relationship between the Church and the state. No matter what happens tonight, the debate will continue and expand. I look forward to a much broader debate on the constitutional issue of the relationship between the Church and the state in the months ahead.
	Like many hon. Members, I am religiously neutral. I was brought up in a Methodist family and married a Catholic. I have been an atheist and I am probably now a humanist. Who knows where I will be in 10 years' time? I am not sure whether that is a confession or a declaration of interest, but hon. Members have started from their personal point of view.
	Although I am religiously neutral, I will defend to the last the right of people who hold religious views to express them and bring their children up within that philosophy. Religion plays no significant part in my life, but I recognise its overwhelming significance in our cultural history. That is why I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he defined the liberal society as one in which people can tolerate the views of those they find intolerant.

Colin Challen: Opposition Members said that many Labour Members hate religion. Perhaps they think that those who support the new clause are atheists. Will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that it is possible to be an atheist and to admire religion? It is even possible to be an atheist and to study it, as I chose to do when I went to university.

David Chaytor: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	I want to deal with the arguments against the amendments. Some hon. Members have accused them of disparaging all religion. That is manifestly not true. Others have criticised them for wanting to put an end to religious schools or to block the development of more religious schools. That is obviously not true. Some people laid the blame on religious schools for the riots in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford. Clearly there is a relationship, but it is not entirely causal. We need to sweep away the social and cultural issues that have come into the argument and concentrate on education.
	I declare an interest because of the many religious schools in my constituency. There is a private Muslim school, a state Anglican school, a state Catholic school and many Church of England and Catholic primary schools, and one of the Church of England primary schools has an overwhelming majority of Muslim pupils. There is thus a diversity of experience in my constituency. I pay tribute to the leadership and the teachers of all those schools. Some of them perform extremely well and are hugely popular with parents; others have serious difficulties.
	The pattern of achievement in religious schools is hugely varied, especially in primary schools. In the secondary sector, the GCSE A to C point score may well be slightly higher overall for religious schools, but we cannot give any credence to the significance of the GCSE point score of any school without also looking at the proportion of children with statements and of children on free school meals that the school takes. In the secondary sector, Church of England and Catholic schools take a significantly smaller proportion of children on free school meals and those with statements than conventional state schools, so we must set any comment about results in the context of intake.
	My support for new clause 1 is based on the educational impact of existing Church schools. I take very much to heart the comments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I accept that in some parts of the country there is tremendous pressure to get into religious schools, because many parents deem the alternative unacceptable. I sympathise with parents in that predicament, but the point is that that in itself cannot be allowed to continue. It is almost as if the hon. Gentleman and others support the status quo as somehow acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Labour Members do not find the current structure acceptable, because the privileges of the minority are obtained to the disadvantage of the majority. The structures must change.

Richard Bacon: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of my own experience. I went to a Church of England cathedral school, which had a very diverse pupil population—there were pupils from all social groups. Obviously, it was predominantly Christian, but there were Jewish and Catholic pupils. It was a great grammar school and had a tremendous ethos—it still does. Unfortunately, it was forced to go private because it was so concerned to maintain its ethos and not have it watered down. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is not a case of the privileges of the minority being won at the expense of the majority, but of opportunities being closed off, and that there could be many circumstances in which the consequence would be the same? Now one can go to that school only if one has the money to do so.

David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman is opening up an argument that is probably more relevant to the next but one set of amendments, which deals specifically with selection. I do not want at this stage to go into the history or ending of direct grant grammar schools; suffice it to say that if the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there was a loss of educational opportunity for the majority when direct grant grammar schools and other schools such as cathedral schools went private in the 1970s, I ask him to consider the levels of achievement of children between 1970 and 2000. He will find that, as the system of comprehensive education has developed year on year, so the levels of achievement have increased. That could not have happened in the days when cathedral or direct grant grammar schools were in the state system.
	I want to move the argument on. I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that the freedom to choose for one set of parents is quite separate from the loss of choice of another set of parents. The importance of freedom of choice is paramount to the extent that it does not impinge on the denial of somebody else's freedom of choice. That to me is the heart of the issue. On any analysis of the structure of secondary education—it is important that we draw the distinction between the operation of faith schools in the primary and secondary sectors—the crux of the matter is that one persons' freedom of choice is another person's denial of choice. The existing structure of faith schools is the central cog in that mechanism. Those are my objections.
	There are issues concerning selection, admissions policy, dubious practices and lack of transparency in the way certain faith schools recruit their pupils. There are questions about the role of parents and whether pupils are admitted because of their parents rather than their inherent aptitude, ability, suitability or character. We could spend a lot of time discussing all that, but it would be a distraction.
	To return to achievement in faith schools, it is true that there are many high-performing faith schools with strong academic results. However, if we look at their achievement in promulgating faith, it can be argued that they have been a disaster. As those schools have become more entrenched in our secondary school system, the number of practising Christians has declined year on year. Passionate supporters of faith schools must consider carefully the fact that the amendments would strengthen the role of religion by making it more inclusive.
	Some long-standing members of the Church of England who were brought up in its faith and culture are almost in denial about the faith crisis in Christianity. The situation in the Isle of Wight, Gainsborough and Suffolk, Coastal may be different from that in the textile towns of east Lancashire and west Yorkshire. However, I urge hon. Members to look at what happens in most of our urban areas on Sunday, and consider how many people choose to practise their faith on Sunday and how many choose to go to the hypermarket. That is a central issue; the current structure of faith schools has served to undermine the credibility of the religious values that they wish to propagate.

Paul Goodman: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that most faith schools would be made stronger if local authorities insisted, as the amendments allow, that they reduce the proportion of pupils of that faith?

David Chaytor: I am arguing that most faith schools would be stronger and that the faith itself would gain strength and wider support if the schools were more exclusive and less inclusive—[Hon. Members: "It is the other way around."] I am grateful for the correction. The various practices in admissions procedures, in which hypocrisy is entrenched, are part of the reason for the growing cynicism about religion in our society. I am neutral on religion. I do not oppose my party manifesto, which calls for an extension of faith schools; I am content to support diversity of school management. If it is a choice between Arthur Andersen and the Church of England, I go for the Church of England every time—[Interruption.] No, it is not a close-run thing; I would certainly choose the Church of England.
	In our debate, we have not separated out the Church's different educational roles; we have not separated its role as propagandist, with which I am extremely uncomfortable, from its role as simple contractor, with which I am content. Again, I cite the Church of England school in my constituency, where a majority of pupils are Muslim. There are many similar examples across the country. I am happy for the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Jewish religion, Methodism and the Muslim faith to manage and run a school, as long as their prime focus is the delivery of high-quality education, not simply the promulgation of the faith.
	My argument, which I do not think has been put this evening, is that for those who believe in Church schools, there is an advantage in supporting the new clause, because it can strengthen the role of Church schools. I ask them to consider seriously what has happened to the levels of membership of their religion over the past quarter of a century.
	I was surprised to find that the Labour party manifesto included a reference to encouraging 100 new faith schools. I do not suppose that I was the only one who was surprised by that, but I am not opposed to it, as long as all religions have an equal chance of taking on the responsibility of running a school. Given that there is not an enormous number of confirmed Christians out there, waiting to go to Church of England schools, it is inevitable that if there are to be 100 new Church of England schools, unless the proportion of hypocrites in the population increases dramatically, those schools will have 20 per cent. or more pupils who are not practising Christians.
	In one sense, the reality of Christianity in the country and the commitment in the manifesto make the substance of the new clause inevitable. However, if there were any attempt to develop 100 new Anglican schools, 100 new Catholic schools, 100 new Muslim schools, and 100 new Sikh schools, there would be serious consequences for social cohesion. I suspect that the vast majority of hon. Members would be extremely uncomfortable if those schools were entirely restricted to the members of that faith.
	The new clause is the only way in which the Labour party manifesto can be implemented without serious social consequences. There is a choice for the Government: to crash ahead with the expansion of exclusive faith schools, with the consequences that we are all concerned about, or to go into reverse and try to hold back the tide and stifle the expansion of state schools, which would be a denial of what was said in the manifesto. The new clause is complementary to the manifesto, because it is the only way in which the pledge to encourage more faith schools can be satisfactorily implemented.

David Rendel: I draw the attention of the House to a personal experience of mine, following the example of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Some years ago I was lucky enough to be asked to become part of the audience during the recording of a version of the "Question Time" television programme.
	On the panel that evening there were four members, of whom one was a Member of the House and a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party. As a result, there was some discussion of the Irish situation. After the panel had expressed their initial views, members of the audience were asked to give theirs. I suggested that perhaps it was time that we thought of desegregating the schools in Northern Ireland. I believed then that the fact that the two communities—the two faiths—were to a large extent being educated separately was one of the reasons why so many young people in Northern Ireland at that time were being brought up to think of members of the other community as the enemy, to be hated and to be opposed in everything that they did.
	I am sad to have to tell the House that the response of the members of the panel to those few remarks was that although they accepted the general point that desegregation of the schools in Northern Ireland would in the long term introduce a much happier community in that sad country, it would simply take too long. There was no way that they could go with that policy because they needed to alter the situation and to bring peace and happiness back to that country in a much shorter time than changes to the education system could achieve.
	That was 20 to 25 years ago. During that time, a whole generation of young people have grown up in Northern Ireland still with that same segregated system. We can see today some of the results. It is one of the great sadnesses of my adult life—I am sure that the same is true of many hon. Members—that so many young people in Northern Ireland from both communities have been shot or bombed since that time and, indeed, that the same has happened to a number of people on this side of the Irish sea. The amount of wealth and opportunity that has been wasted by the continuation of that struggle is a great sadness to us all. If we could only have found a way of avoiding it at the time, even if it had taken a generation to do so, would it not have been better to start so many years ago and to have a better situation now?
	I believe that we have a duty to ensure that our schools include a wide variety of faiths where that is possible. As has often been said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have nothing against faith schools—there is no reason why we should not have schools that are run by and based on a faith—but I think that it is important that we should include members of different faiths in each of those schools, in order to ensure that people do not grow up in the sort of bigoted way that has, sadly, so often prevailed in Northern Ireland. I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument that we can simply introduce one or two lessons a week in civics, politics or democracy—or whatever one wants to call it—and thereby teach young people tolerance in the way that they can be taught tolerance out of their own experience, if they grow up with members of other faiths and communities, where they can come to learn that the humanity that binds us all together is so much greater and more important than the divide between different religions and communities.

Glenda Jackson: I rise briefly, essentially to rebut the arguments that have emanated from the Opposition Benches stating that the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled the new clause is based on some sort of hatred of religion and that those of us who support their proposals share that hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth.
	May I give the House the benefit of some of my personal experience? I went to a Church of England infant and junior school and can clearly remember when the moment in the day came for a Church of England religious observance. We all went to those schools; they were the only ones in the small place where I lived. At the time of day to which I refer, children who were of a Catholic or Jewish faith or of no faith at all were allowed to leave the room. We were often extremely envious of them, because they could play and we had to pray. I do not think, however, that that necessarily marked our attitude to them as human beings.
	Hampstead and Highgate has a large number of faith-based schools, certainly in the primary sector. Without exception, they are committed to inclusivity. I have one faith-based school where I think that 56 different languages are spoken. I do not think that anybody ever bothers to ask the children what their religion is. All that that school is concerned with, like all the primary schools in my constituency, is ensuring that every child has the best possible education. I have one faith-based secondary school in my constituency, and yet all the secondary schools there are over-subscribed. Where I have difficulty in understanding why my own Government have problems with accepting the new clause is that—

David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 405.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18
	 — 
	No requirements of attendance at a place of religious worship (No. 2)

'(1) It shall not be required, as a condition of a pupil being admitted to a maintained school, that:
	(a) he must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;
	(b) his parents or guardians must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;
	(c) the pupil, his parent(s) or guardian(s) belong to a particular faith or denomination.
	(2) The local education authority after consultation with the admission forum may by regulation authorise that, notwithstanding (1) a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination.
	(3) Where the local education authority is informed that there are sufficient applications to a particular maintained school to fill the available places, the local education authority may after consultation with the admission forum authorise an increase up to 100 per cent. in the numbers of pupils admitted who are of the particular faith or denomination of the maintained school in question.
	(4) This section shall only have effect in respect of schools established after the coming into force of this Act.'.—[Mr. Willis.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 409.

Question accordingly negatived.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is now in an impossible position. With less than an hour to go, by my calculation, we still have 16 groups of amendments to consider, including eight new clauses, 35 Government amendments and about 70 other amendments. While we have been considering this very important Bill, Government Members have taken up almost 200 minutes, as opposed to 160 minutes for the Opposition. How can we tell the world that we have considered the Bill properly when so pathetically little time is left? May I, through you, ask the Government—there is still time for them to do this—either to allow us tonight to sit for as long as is necessary to do justice to the Bill, or failing that, to give us more time to consider it on another occasion, so that we can do our job properly?

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be prepared to consider a manuscript amendment? There are precedents for that. It seems to me that this is a mockery of parliamentary democracy. This is an extremely important Bill, and unless we do something, many issues of real significance will not be discussed at all. I could have a manuscript amendment with you within two minutes. I hope that you will be prepared to accept it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the points that have been made.
	Under the present circumstances, the answer to whether I can accept a manuscript amendment is no.

Anne McIntosh: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just about to say why, if the hon. Lady will let me. The House has agreed a programme motion, and I am a servant of the House, so I must abide by that decision. That is the good reason why I cannot accept a manuscript amendment. We must proceed with the agreed programme.
	I can also tell the shadow Leader of the House that he has made his point and put these matters on the record. However, there is nothing that I can do to intervene in these matters. I think that the right hon. Gentleman raised the point of order originally to put certain matters on the record.

Eric Forth: No.

Mr. Speaker: Then, as far as I am concerned, it was not a point of order.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you ask the Clerks to bring forward the record of the occasion when the Single European Act was guillotined through the House of Commons in 1985? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) voted for that legislation to be guillotined through in far less time than has been allocated to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I could ask the Clerks for that information, but I will not, because we have a programme motion before us.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it really a point of order?

Patrick McLoughlin: I seek clarification from the Chair. You said that you could not accept a manuscript amendment because there was a programme motion. I am somewhat confused, therefore, about how the occupant of the Chair yesterday was able to accept a manuscript amendment, given that there was a programme motion before the House. Is there one rule for the Government and another for the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: No. I am even-handed in these matters, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this House has agreed to a programme motion.

Patrick McLoughlin: What about yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Well, today is another day. This House has agreed to a—[Interruption.] Order. Please allow me to speak. There is a programme motion before us, and we must go through the procedure of that motion.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that he is eating into the time available. There has been a complaint that there is not enough time allowed by the programme motion, and yet the hon. Gentleman is eating into it.

Chris Grayling: I simply seek clarification from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. A number of the clauses that are due to come up in the remainder of the debate were not debated in Committee, and I fear that there may not be time to debate them tonight. Can you clarify the status of those clauses as a result of that?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to continue along these lines.

Patrick Cormack: No, Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask you two things. First, I was going to ask you to remind the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that sinners can come to repentance. Secondly, I was going to ask whether you would be kind enough to refer the whole question of programme motions to the Select Committee on Procedure, because the present situation is manifestly unsatisfactory. Would you at least undertake to do that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has long experience of the House, and he knows that it is within his power to bring these matters before the Procedure Committee. There is no need for me to do that.

Eric Forth: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Leader of the House is with us—and I am delighted to see him in his place—will you extend to him the courtesy of allowing him to let us have the Government's thoughts on where we now find ourselves? Is the Leader of the House prepared to use his legendary ingenuity to find ways in which we can debate the Bill properly? As you rightly pointed out to the House, Mr. Speaker, a programme motion is in operation. However, the events of yesterday were not dissimilar to the circumstances prevailing today. Will you allow the Leader of the House the latitude to present to the House—and to you—a solution to the problem that we face?

Mr. Speaker: The House has agreed a programme motion. I would not encourage the Leader of the House to come forward and interfere with that motion.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Modification of employment law

'(1) In section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as amended by Schedule 21 to this Act there is added at the end of sub–section (1) "or as he considers necessary to ensure that persons employed to work in schools to whom those provisions apply have the benefit of the rights conferred by school enactments as if the governing bodies of those schools were their employers."
	(2) In Paragraph 3 of the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999 S.I. 1999/2256. There is added
	(a)after sub-paragraph (1)(e)
	"(f) in the case of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 references to a relevant transfer includes transfers from one governing body to another
	(b) in the Schedule "Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991.".'—[Mr. Willis.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 20—Responsibilities for the National Assembly for Wales—
	'Any reference made to the Secretary of State in relation to responsibility for teachers pay and conditions shall be taken to mean the National Assembly for Wales when these functions are exercised in Wales.'.
	Amendment No. 90, in clause 35, page 21, line 38, at end insert—
	'only in those circumstances in which a school has been designated as a "failing school" or when inspection has highlighted serious concerns about the leadership or governance of the school.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Phil Willis: Before I speak to new clause 3, I must tell the House that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) wishes to speak to new clause 20. I understand that, with the leave of the House, he wishes to call a Division on that new clause.
	New clause 3 is a small but important provision that would affect a significant number of members of the teaching staffs of schools that could be involved in a closure or merger. At present, if two community schools were closed to be merged as a single school, TUPE would not apply. Both sets of staff would be made redundant and would thus be assimilated in the new school, or have to apply for jobs there.
	However, if one of the schools was voluntary aided, meaning that its staff were employed by the school's governors rather than by the local education authority, its staff would be covered by the TUPE regulations, while the group of staff in the controlled school would have no rights under those regulations. That is clearly unjust.
	In fact, it is so unjust that a case was brought by the National Union of Teachers—Askew v. the London borough of Ealing—in the Court of Appeal. The judgment was simple: the judge said that what had happened was not unlawful under current legislation, but made clear the necessity for the Government to change the law to give all teachers—of whatever school—the same rights under TUPE.
	I hope that the Government will give the new clause a positive response, as it aims to give all teachers—whether in community schools, voluntary-aided schools or any school maintained by the state—exactly the same rights as regards employment, redundancy and transfer of undertaking. [Interruption.] Although Conservative Members do not seem interested in the employment rights of individual teachers, I hope that they understand the importance of ensuring that all teaching staff have that protection.
	When the Secretary of State was approached about a change to the law, there was an understanding that the Education Bill would include changes to the TUPE arrangements, thus affording protection for teachers in situations such as I described. I do not intend to put new clause 3 to a vote; I seek only an assurance from the Government that they will deal with the problem. If the new clause is flawed, they could table an amendment in another place before the Bill completes its passage.

Adam Price: I support new clause 20, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and other hon. Friends. It is not a wreckers' amendment but a reformers' amendment—very much in the spirit of the Bill. In its provisions for Wales, the Bill would allow Wales to follow its own course and to devise an education policy that meets its needs.
	In previous debates, I have been generous about the Bill and indeed about education policy in Wales. When I described Wales as a left-wing teachers' utopia, I did not realise how prescient I had been until I read in the Western Mail this morning that the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the Welsh Assembly, Jane Davidson, is to sign a memorandum of understanding
	"committing Wales and Cuba to work together in the field of education".
	That is not so much a case of "They shall not pass" as of "They shall pass"—in ever higher numbers and with better grades.
	Wales does well from the Bill. We welcomed many of its provisions, especially its sweeping enabling powers. There is one omission, however. The part of the Bill that deals with teachers' pay and conditions introduces a new framework for the determination of teachers' pay. We have tabled the new clause to close the lacuna in the devolution of education policy. All the clauses in that part of the Bill are devolved, but a veto is effectively being placed on the National Assembly for Wales as regards teachers' pay and conditions. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from Ministers as to why powers over pay and conditions should not be devolved.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me as a Member who represents a border seat within Wales, that different terms and conditions for teachers in Wales and in England would act to the detriment of recruitment that benefits Welsh children?

Adam Price: I would understand the hon. Gentleman's argument if it were not for the fact that it is built into the logic of the Bill that a local, decentralised system of pay agreement is to be allowed. There will certainly be no uniformity within England. We are also well aware that devolution of the power over pay and conditions would allow us to ratchet pay and conditions up. In Scotland, the McCrone Committee proposal that teachers' work loads should be cut considerably, their pay improved considerably and their conditions improved has been implemented in the Scottish teachers' agreement. That is why we need the devolution of that power—so that we in Wales can have the same standards as are being introduced in Scotland.
	If the Government are not prepared to take that step in one go, they could make arrangements to allow greater consultation with the School Teachers' Review Body. Clause 115 gives the Secretary of State alone the power to appoint members of the STRB. Why is there not a seat for a representative appointed by the National Assembly for Wales? Clause 117 allows the Secretary of State
	"to submit evidence and make representations".
	Why is the Assembly, which has its own distinctive education policy, not allowed to do so?
	Clause 117 also lists relevant bodies that must be consulted by the STRB in coming to its conclusions. The list includes local education authorities and school governing bodies, but it does not include the National Assembly for Wales, which is responsible for education policy. It is disgraceful that the Assembly will be connected with the STRB only by virtue of the fact that the Secretary of State must consult the Assembly. There is no requirement on the Secretary of State to pass the views of the Assembly on to the STRB.
	The STRB stated in its most recent report, which was published a few weeks ago, that it was well aware of the views in Wales. It states:
	"We consider that it is still possible"—
	despite the views of teaching bodies in Wales—
	"at present for one Review Body to make recommendations covering both England and Wales. In the future, much will depend upon the extent to which policies between England and Wales diverge".
	They have diverged massively in the Bill. Surely it is not the responsibility of the voluntary members of the STRB to decide whether Wales should have a separate review body; it is for this House to decide and that is why we tabled our new clause.
	In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales pointed out that the Scottish situation is different because Scotland has a separate education system. In Wales, the curriculum, the inspection system, financing, governance and organisation of schools are all separate. The only thing that remains conjoined is teachers' pay and conditions.
	The continued yoking together of pay and conditions in England and Wales does not make sense if we are serious about allowing a genuinely distinctive policy. The Government have said that they are in favour of allowing divergence and distinctiveness in education policy. If we are to have a fully comprehensive education policy in Wales, in both senses of the word, we need devolution of the power over pay and conditions as well.

Graham Brady: As we continue with the pretence of scrutinising the Bill, I am keen that we should have an opportunity to vote on some of the later new clauses, which are of enormous importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to many people outside, although apparently not to the Government, who are not prepared to give us the time to deal with them adequately. I shall therefore be brief in speaking to amendment No. 90.
	Amendment. No 90 would limit the Secretary of State's power to interfere in staffing decisions in foundation and voluntary-aided schools. It is a simple amendment that would limit the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill to failing schools or schools where people are concerned about leadership. It would protect the status of foundation and voluntary-aided schools as the employers of their staff and their independence in taking those decisions. I want to hear the Minister's response, although I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I hope that we shall make rapid progress so that we can, at least briefly, deal with some of the other important new clauses.

Stephen Timms: I wish to speak to Government amendment No. 31. Under clause 118, our intention is to define the term "school teacher" to ensure that all those working in schools who are currently legally covered by pay and conditions orders continue to be so covered. Without the amendment, it might be argued that head teachers would not be covered, so there is a need to include them separately, as under the amendment.
	I also wish to speak to Government amendment No. 32. The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) raised this matter in Committee. I undertook then to reflect on whether a specific requirement for consultation on orders made under clause 121(4)(a) should be incorporated into the primary legislation. Amendment No. 32 secures that, and I believe that it meets hon. Members' concerns in full, so I hope that they will welcome it.
	New clause 3 contains some technical flaws, but the principle behind it is clear. It is intended to modify the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, so that they apply to school staff involved in all transfers between maintained schools, whether or not a transfer between different employers is involved. TUPE should certainly cover transfers of undertaking between different employers, but it is unnecessary to go further than that to cover transfers or reorganisations between schools where the employer remains the same.
	I wish to say two things to help the House and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. First, the current arrangements for dismissals in community, voluntary controlled and community special schools, which are set out in schedule 16 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, require employing local education authorities to terminate the contracts of employees where their governing bodies have made determinations that they should cease to work at their schools. That requirement ensures that the employing LEA does not have to consider, in line with normal employers' duties, alternative employment options elsewhere in the authority area, including inquiries with other schools or services, in attempting to avoid redundancies. I understand the concern about that arrangement.
	The provisions of schedule 16 will be moved to staffing regulations under clause 34. We shall consult on the content of those regulations. In doing so, we shall give attention to the drafting of the staff dismissal provision, so that governing bodies will be required to give LEAs notice of impending redundancies. We shall make it clear that LEAs will be subject to the same duties as they are for their other staff and have to consider alternatives to redundancies before resorting to terminating contracts. That will be a significant change in the regulations, which will, in part, meet the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
	Secondly, I will give further thought to the doubt that now surrounds some transfers of staff to and from maintained schools, following the Askew judgment. That judgment was clear, but its terms and explanation raised some questions. The Bill may already clarify the employment position sufficiently to ease the problem, but I am prepared to consider it further.
	I must say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that it was a great disappointment to Government members of the Committee that its Conservative members consistently declined to take up the extra time that we were keen to offer. Evening after evening, we offered additional time so that we could scrutinise the Bill further, but our offers were repeatedly declined.
	Amendment No. 90 would leave foundation voluntary-aided and foundation special schools to their own devices in deciding their arrangements for staffing. I accept that it is a probing amendment, but it does not provide a sensible way to proceed on such an important issue. The staffing of schools accounts for the greatest cost by far of their funding and it is important that resources are managed and spent wisely in accordance with good practice and appropriate professional advice. The regulations and statutory guidance on staffing provisions, which the amendment seeks to disapply, will ensure consistency, a basic level of good practice and appropriate professional advice. Details of the likely content of the staffing regulations have already been provided to members of the Committee and they are now in the Library of the House.
	It is important that all schools are subject to those arrangements to ensure that matters are handled appropriately and consistently. In particular, suddenly applying the arrangements in the way that the amendment envisages when schools fall into failure would not make much difference in the short term, and it is help in the short term that failing schools need most. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is better to have arrangements that help schools avoid falling into failure in the first place. That is what we envisage.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made an important point about new clause 20. It seeks to devolve teachers' pay and conditions to the National Assembly for Wales. We have not had any request for that to be done either from the Assembly or from the trade unions for the reasons that he gave.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend not find it strange that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who is a member of Plaid Cymru, should seek to introduce in this House something that the National Assembly has not requested? Is that not a peculiar position to take for someone who is supposed to be in favour of devolution?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an entirely proper point. I agree with him. A similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Under–Secretary of State for Wales in Committee.

Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: No, because I need to make progress.
	The Committee debated the arrangements for teachers' pay in Wales on a probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I reiterate that the question of whether teachers' pay in Wales should be a devolved matter was settled in the devolution arrangements made under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the subsequent transfer of functions orders. Responsibility for teachers' pay and conditions was not transferred to the Assembly.
	The establishment of a new School Teachers' Review Body for Wales, which would probably need to be provided for if we were to accept new clause 20 in principle, might have a marginal impact on the work load of the existing STRB for England and Wales, but it would of course create a substantial new work load and increased running costs for the Assembly. No doubt, for that and other reasons, the Assembly has shown no desire to determine teachers' pay in Wales under its own pay machinery.

Adam Price: Will the Minister consider giving the Assembly the right to submit its representations to the STRB under the terms of the Bill?

Stephen Timms: The STRB currently consults the Secretary of State and that position was settled in the Government of Wales Act 1998. I do not think that there is any case—in fact, there has been no such call from the Assembly or the trade unions—for those arrangements to be changed.
	On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will feel able to withdraw his new clause and that the House will accept the Government amendments.

Phil Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4
	 — 
	Selection by aptitude

'(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 59) is amended as follows.
	(2) Clause 99 (General restriction on selection by ability or aptitude) is amended by leaving out subsection (4)(b).
	(3) Clause 102 (Permitted Selection: aptitude for particular subjects.) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Willis.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Phil Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Grammar schools: Access to parental ballots and information—
	'(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 59) is amended as follows—
	(2) In section 105(2) procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements, paragraphs (b) and (c) are omitted.
	(3) Section 106(1) (eligibility of parents to request or vote in a ballot) is amended by inserting "primary" before "schools".
	(4) In section 106 subsection (2) is omitted.
	(5) Section 106(3)(a) (proportion of parents required to request a ballot) is amended by leaving out "20" and inserting "5".
	(6) Section 106(3) paragraph (b) is omitted.
	(7) Section 107(3) (information provision by the authority or body on intentions or proposals following a successful petition) is amended by leaving out subsection (c) and inserting—
	"(c) a statement by the authority or body on intentions or proposals for a non–selective education system which may include information on options, costs and planning assumptions in the event of such a result.".'.
	New clause 9—Permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects—
	'The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is amended by omitting section 102.'.
	New clause 12—Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots—
	'After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 there is inserted—
	"106A Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots
	Where a petition of parents has been initiated, or a ballot held, and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years from the initiation of the petition.".'.

Phil Willis: New clause 4 is simple and, if the Minister readily agrees to it, we will not need to divide the House. However, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) might want to press new clause 12 to a vote.
	Before the Labour party came to power in 1997, it made a strong commitment to the British people in the run-up to the general election. Several hon. Members, including the Prime Minister and the then shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), stated that selection would not be extended under a Labour Government. We expected them to move swiftly and directly to end selection in our schools.
	Nothing happened in 1997, but in 1998 the Government introduced their first major education Bill, which became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We eagerly went through that to identify the clauses that would end selection in schools. There was, however, no mention of selection other than the introduction of ballots for grammar schools. The Conservatives opposed that because they thought that it was a tortuous way of getting rid of grammar schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I opposed ballots because we thought that they would be a bureaucratic nightmare and that no one would meet the conditions. Indeed, there has been only one ballot, for Ripon grammar school, which was so heavily rigged—

Graham Brady: Ha!

Phil Willis: Let me explain why. Half the people who could vote had their children in private schools where they were being groomed for the 11-plus so that they could get into the grammar school. All the kids who went to the state local schools could not get in because of the kids from the private schools. The ballot was lost and a significant amount of money was wasted. Those were the rules of engagement.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman knows that we oppose new clause 4. As I want to press new clause 12 to a vote, perhaps we can find some common ground. Does he agree that the ballot arrangements caused the remaining grammar schools immense uncertainty? In areas such as Trafford, which I represent, or Kent, where my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has his constituency, attempts have been made to close those schools. That happened last year and it is happening again. Although there is not the requisite number to trigger a ballot, the process causes schools enormous uncertainty, which is an intolerable burden. I hope that when we press for a vote on new clause 12, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support us in relieving schools of that burden.

Phil Willis: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman so much co-operation, but I am sure that he will feel able to support us when we call for a vote on new clause 4, in which case we will consider carefully what he said.

Robert Key: indicated dissent

Phil Willis: Perhaps that degree of co-operation is not fully established.

Stephen Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to draw a line under the matter would be to change the regulations, so that in places such as Kent we can have the ballot, and once and for all put an end to this mess and get rid of the corrosive evil that is selective education?

Phil Willis: Of course when the hon. Gentleman fought a general election for the first time in 1997 he expected a Labour Government to do exactly that. Indeed, our party still believes that democratically elected local authorities—which I do not believe the Government intend yet to abolish, although they may do so before the end of this Parliament—should be able to make such decisions. Sadly, of course, that is not so. Until we start to return power and democracy to local people through local government, we will not be able to meet those aspirations.

Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Phil Willis: I am sorry, but I will not give way again because I know that the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) want to speak.
	I apologise for digressing a little. I do not want to table a new clause that would get rid of grammar schools. All I want to get rid of with new clause 4 is what the Government introduced in the School Standards and Framework Act.
	We were promised no selection, but instead of dealing with grammar schools, the Government said that they wanted to introduce more selection, not by ability but by aptitude. The debate was tortuous. The then Minister for Schools Standards tried to persuade the Committee and the House that there was a significant difference between the two, but we were never able to see it. Someone thought that it was better to have the ability to fly a plane than the aptitude for doing so, but I could not work out the difference if it crashed. In reality, the Government wanted to allow 10 per cent. of students in specialist schools—that was their new idea—to be selected by aptitude.
	I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to her place.

Estelle Morris: Just for you.

Phil Willis: I know that it is just for me.
	The right hon. Lady has often said, "The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough doth protest too much because most schools have not used the 10 per cent. aptitude provision but ignored it, and that proves the case." I say to her that we have a golden opportunity. Schools do not want the aptitude provision. Only 7 per cent. of schools have used it, and most of them were selecting before. As we have heard—I will not reopen the debate—schools are selecting by faith.
	The new clause would simply get rid of the whole business of selecting by aptitude. The right hon. Lady knows that such selection is nonsense, as does the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. If the Government are to introduce selection, they should at least have the guts to make it by ability. If not, let us get rid of the nonsense. I ask the House to support new clause 4.

Graham Brady: I am delighted to have the opportunity, however brief, to speak to new clause 12. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has made clear his opposition to the remaining grammar schools. At least he has always been both clear and consistent in that. The Government have been clear in their opposition to the remaining grammar schools but not always consistent. They seem to move to and fro on the issue.
	We have not only had the celebrated instance to which the hon. Gentleman referred of the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), saying, "Read my lips: no selection by exam or interview." The Government appear to have reneged on that as they have developed a belief that selection by ability or aptitude in some circumstances can be a route to raising standards in schools.
	The latest twist and turn in the process came just before Christmas when, on 7 December, in an article on the front page of The Times under the headline "Labour ends its 30-year war against grammars", we read:
	"Labour will declare an historic truce with grammar schools today after two generations spent trying to abolish selective education."
	The article continues:
	"Less than four years after the Government gave parents the power to abolish the remaining grammar schools and ruled out the creation of any more, Stephen Timms, the School Standards Minister, will trumpet plans to harness their expertise. Allocating £500,000 to link schools in 28 areas of England, Mr. Timms will say: 'The time of a "one-size-fits-all" approach to secondary education has long gone. We now have a mature understanding of the benefits of a diverse system, tailored to meet the needs of every pupil in every town.'"
	We welcomed that enormously. The article also says:
	"Tony Blair has consistently stated his opposition to selection. He once told head teachers that he knew people had been scarred for life by rejection at the age of 11"—
	an obvious reference to his Deputy. There was some concern in the article, but its gist was welcome: the Government, after being ideologically hostile to the remaining grammar schools, had come around to accepting that they are excellent schools which provide opportunity for children in the communities that they serve.
	I am proud to represent one of those communities. I am delighted that one of the partnerships between grammar schools and other parts of the maintained sector in which the Government have recently invested is based partly in my constituency. Altrincham grammar school for girls, the sister school of the school which I attended, is, as the Secretary of State will know, in partnership with her old school, the nearby Whalley Range high school. That is a welcome initiative. If Members will forgive a brief indulgence, I shall point out that the right hon. Lady frequently visits her old school to make announcements and promote Government policy, so perhaps I can ask her to join me on a visit to its partner, Altrincham grammar school for girls. Together we could explore the great advantages of grammar schools in spreading best practice to other parts of the maintained sector.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has talked about diversity. What sort of diversity is there in my constituency, where we have no comprehensives? We have the two sides of the selective coin—grammar schools and secondary moderns. Where is the choice for my constituents?

Graham Brady: We support Government policy in that area. I hope that, as has been the case in my constituency, the hon. Gentleman's constituency increasingly has a blend of grammar schools, specialist schools and others; I hope that there would be few schools which offered no choice or advantages to his constituents. We welcome the increasing diversity of schools.

Chris Grayling: Would my hon. Friend explain to Government Members that grammar schools select children from all walks of life and all backgrounds, and are genuinely socially inclusive? Comprehensive schools tend to use the system of selection by estate agent, which cannot be fair to pupils in his constituency and elsewhere.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend is right, and I am acutely aware of the problem. If my old school, Altrincham grammar school for boys, had been a comprehensive when I was a boy, I would not have fallen within its catchment area; eligibility would have been limited to the most affluent parts of my constituency.
	I do not wish to detain the House on parochial matters. The vital fact is that we, like the Government, recognise the excellent work that grammar schools are doing.

Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that even if he wished to detain the House, he cannot do so for more than seven minutes, so he may not succeed in developing his argument and will not touch on any other issue? Does he not agree that that is a total disregard of Parliament and what it ought to stand for?

Graham Brady: I agree. If my hon. Friend had had the misfortune to witness the Government's mismanagement of the Committee stage, he would be even more outraged than he rightly is now.

David Chaytor: rose—

Graham Brady: I shall give way in a moment; I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be a convert to the cause of grammar schools, as the Government appear to be. We, like the Government, recognise the important job that grammar schools in the maintained sector do so well. The latest research published a few months ago by the National Foundation for Educational Research demonstrated the great strengths of the grammar schools in achieving better performance up to GCSE level for middle-ability children and up to key stage 3. I know that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) recognises that.

David Chaytor: Acknowledging that the benefits of a mature understanding of diversity have been conferred upon us all, does the hon. Gentleman accept, with reference to his earlier point about insecurity related to selective systems, that he should support my new clause 8, which would make it easier for a ballot to take place, whereby the issue could be settled for a number of years? As long as it is more difficult for a ballot to take place, the axe is always hanging over the school. It would help his cause and provide stability and security if the ballot could take place and the issue could be settled.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he leads me to the central point of new clause 12, which involves stability and how best we can remove the threat that hangs over the remaining grammar schools—a threat that can arise every year. Even when there is no real will in a community to dispose of the grammar schools, it is possible for a small group of parents, frequently politically motivated, to initiate a petition. As soon as that happens, the schools are under threat. An enormous amount of effort is diverted from the educational priorities of the schools. The time of staff, governors and parents and fund-raising efforts are taken up not with helping the school but with fighting misguided attempts to abolish it.
	That is why new clause 12 seeks to provide that once a petition has been initiated, or a ballot has been initiated or taken place, there will be a period of six years during which no further petition can be initiated. That is vital for thousands of children who attend grammar schools. It is essential that they have a period of grace during which their education can proceed without their school being faced with uncertainty and threatened with closure. The importance of the six-year period is that if a child starts at a grammar school in a year in which a threat is faced by the school, he can proceed through the remaining six years of what is likely to be a seven-year period at the school, without further threats to the school. New clause 12 provides the stability that the hon. Member for Bury, North described and I hope that he will support it.

David Chaytor: rose—

Graham Brady: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have very little time. I cannot give way now.
	The new clause would protect our existing grammar schools from repeated threats of closure, giving them stability and allowing them to thrive without being under constant threat. It would not do away with the ballot process, but it would improve life for grammar schools and the children whom they serve. That is why I hope that we will have an opportunity to press new clause 12 to a Division. This is a matter of the utmost importance to many thousands of people outside the House, and it will be of great concern to them if the House does not have an opportunity to divide on such an important matter.
	Sadly, as a result of the Government's intransigence and incompetence, we have not had the opportunity properly to debate the new clauses and amendments relating to selection by aptitude and ability. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Liberal Benches to support the new clause. I hope that the Government will take advantage of the opportunity to make real what they claim is the end of their hostility to the remaining grammar schools, and prove that they recognise the value of our grammar schools by giving them a chance to flourish and grow as they should be able to do.

David Chaytor: The arguments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) depend absolutely on the implementation of new clause 8, which I tabled. Unless a ballot takes place, there will be no point in specifying that six years must—

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 420.

Question accordingly negatived.

Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt you are now considering whether we have time to put new clause 20 to a vote. Would it be in order for me to ask you, when making that consideration, to take into account the fact that it would have the support of three of the parties represented in this Parliament? The new clause relates only to Wales. Thirty-two of the clauses in the Bill relate only to Wales, and 31 relate only to England. We did not have the opportunity to debate the matters relating to Wales in Standing Committee because there was not one Welsh Opposition Member on the Committee. Will you take that into consideration when deciding whether we have time to vote on new clause 20?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any question of a vote on new clause 20 would arise only after we have dealt with new clause 12. I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any succour.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots

'After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 there is inserted—
	"106A Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots
	Where a petition of parents has been initiated, or a ballot held, and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years from the initiation of the petition.".'.—[Mr. Damian Green.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
	The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 16
	 — 
	Further education institution: hazardous material, &c.

'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the governing body of a further education institution in England to prevent the use in the institution of specified equipment or specified materials without the approval of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Secretary of State may specify equipment or materials under this section only if he thinks the equipment or materials might endanger a person's health or safety.
	(3) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations require the governing body of a further education institution in Wales to prevent the use in the institution of specified equipment or specified materials without the approval of the Assembly.
	(4) The National Assembly for Wales may specify equipment or materials under this section only if it thinks the equipment or materials might endanger a person's health or safety.
	(5) In this section "further education institution" means an institution within the further education sector.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Question put, That the remaining Government amendments be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I shall be brief, as I want to give one hon. Member from each of the main Opposition parties time to speak. It is a pleasure for me to begin this debate, but I shall start by offering some thanks to my ministerial team—my hon. Friends the Under–Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Minister for School Standards and the Under–Secretary of State for Wales—who took the Bill through Standing Committee. I wish to thank also those Officers of the House who, as ever, have helped and guided us, and my officials in the Department.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Estelle Morris: Very well.

Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady says that she feels pleasure. Should not she feel shame that the Bill has not been properly discussed in this place?

Estelle Morris: That is a pity. I was just about to thank Opposition Members for—from time to time—engaging in constructive and enjoyable debate. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I was told that on several occasions Opposition Members were offered the opportunity to sit later in the evening, but that on every occasion they chose not to do so.

Graham Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Estelle Morris: I shall in a moment.
	There have been two days during which to debate the Bill—one of which was extended this evening. To a large extent, the Opposition's use of that time was determined by them. I sat through debate on a string of amendments last night. The Opposition had the choice—

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the Secretary of State get away with misleading the House in such a vile way—[Interruption.]—when the fact is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to choose his words more carefully.

Patrick McLoughlin: How can the Secretary of State equate what she says with what actually happened today, when the Government spent 198 minutes on a motion and the Opposition Chief Whip had to move the closure so that we could begin to make a little progress? It is outrageous for the right hon. Lady to say what she is saying.
	Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings on the matter, but it is a matter for debate not for the Chair.

Estelle Morris: The Bill is about children out there—

Graham Brady: rose—

Estelle Morris: Those children deserve a good standard of education in our schools—[Hon. Members: "Give way!"] I am not giving way. If hon. Gentlemen will shut up, I shall give the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) time to respond, but the more I have to give way, the less time there will be for the debate.
	The Bill is important. It builds on the success of the past four years of Labour Government. It means that we can build on the successes in primary education, recognised by the Ofsted annual report yesterday and the PISA—programme for international student assessment—report published at the end of last year.
	The Bill recognises that we have a hugely accountable schools service. We know where our strengths lie and the Bill allows us to use our time and energy to provide greater support for those schools that are failing, and to free up the school system so that schools can be the initiators of reform. We have an accountable system and, in coming years, I look forward to being able to build on our success, working on the ideas that come from our best teachers, our best school leaders and our strongest local education authorities so that they lead the next generation of educational reform.
	I am also delighted that we have taken powers in the Bill to free up the curriculum, especially for 14 to 19-year-olds. In future months, I look forward to debates in the House about better opportunities for the many who have failed in the past.
	In essence, the measure will ensure that every child who attends a school in this country has the opportunity to succeed and flourish; to build on their talents; and to be taught in well-led schools by teachers who are well trained, with the chance of professional development. During the past four years, we have made tremendous progress. That progress is recognised not only by Labour Members, but by parents throughout the country.
	I have every confidence that the Bill provides the measures that we need to ensure that we deliver what we are concerned about—not counting up the number of minutes of Members' speeches, but making sure that our teachers and school leaders have the tools to do the job.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Damian Green: On Second Reading, the Bill was opposed not only by Conservative Members but by nearly everyone else in education, because it concentrates on structures not standards. It will do nothing much to improve the standard of education.
	The Bill has not been improved by the parliamentary process, despite the efforts of Members of all the Opposition parties in Committee, because of the Government's contempt for the House and their attempt to deny debate at every stage.
	What the Secretary of State said about the Standing Committee is a travesty of the truth. What happened in Committee was that, apart from imposing too strict a guillotine on the entire timetable, the Government also imposed intermediate guillotines, which ensured that there was not enough time for debating every controversial clause in the Bill.
	That is how the Government behaved in Committee and they have continued to behave as outrageously on Report. Today, 17 groups of amendments were on the amendment paper. We have dealt with three of those groups and we finished with the first group only because the Opposition Chief Whip moved a closure. The Government were happy and prepared to spend the entire day and night discussing one group of amendments, leaving many important issues entirely undebated.
	The Government will also know that, partly because we have not been able to have a vote on a matter of particular interest to Welsh Members, which was also not debated in Committee, the entire part of the Bill dealing with Wales—a significant part—has not been discussed at any stage in this House. That is a complete insult.
	We must now invite another place to consider how well this House has done its duty. At least the Government have failed so far in their plans completely to emasculate their lordships House as well, so we can still invite their lordships to do their job fully and thoroughly, not least because of the areas that we have failed to debate tonight, which cover an enormous range of policies that are deeply important to schools, parents and teachers.
	We have not discussed the Government's proposals on sixth forms or schools' powers to form companies—a radical and revolutionary proposal that the Government welcome and that everyone agrees is one of the most important changes to affect our schools—[Interruption.] The Government seem to think that it is funny that we have not debated it. Also, we did not debate the governance and financing of maintained schools, schools forums or admissions policy. If the Government do not think that admissions policy is important to every parent, they are even more out of touch than I thought. We have not discussed the proposals on school organisation, which would allow the setting up of academies and other new schools.
	Finally, we have not discussed the curriculum, although a huge number of amendments were tabled that would change it. Nothing could be more at the heart of our school system than what is taught and learned in our schools.
	The Government have failed to allow any proper discussion in the House and it is a disgrace. The Secretary of State should realise that in the long run this is not just a parliamentary matter. Clearly, it is serious that the House is held in contempt by the Executive of the day, but it is more than a parliamentary matter. It will affect everyone in the country. We will be piling up problems for our schools and their teachers and pupils because the House will be passing bad and inadequate law.

Robert Key: Does my hon. Friend also agree that schools are dreading the regulatory impact of much of the legislation. What really matters to head teachers and parents in my constituency is, for example, the impact of the decriminalisation of cannabis on the sixth form life of their schools. We have not even discussed that tonight.

Damian Green: The Government could have given the House the opportunity to debate that and many other important measures. They have deliberately failed to do so. The tests that the House and the country will set the Bill are: will it encourage a single extra teacher to stay in the profession; will it cut the red tape that is driving teachers out of our class rooms; and will it improve discipline in our schools? The answer to all those questions is a very clear no.
	Conservative Members would have welcomed moves to give more freedom to schools to improve standards. In our period in office, we gave schools those freedoms. Those are the freedoms that this Government have taken away. The Bill will increase the centralisation of our education system. Every important decision will have to go across the desk of the Secretary of State. That is not the way to run a modern, flexible education system.
	Apart from the fact that the Bill is another turn of the ratchet in making Parliament irrelevant, we now know that not only are the Government holding this House in contempt tonight, but that they propose to do so through the institutions of the Bill. The fact is that the Bill will take away the power of the House to pass primary legislation on important details. The Government will deal with all important details by secondary legislation. They have amply shown their contempt for the House, and the Bill shows that even further.
	The Bill was inadequate on Second Reading, and the Government have conspired to ensure that the House cannot fulfil its function of improving it. For the sake of our schools, we must ask the Members of another place to do their best to reduce the damage. The Bill was inadequate; it is still inadequate, and I invite those hon. Members from all parties who care about our schools and our children's education to reject it.

Ian Lucas: An important aspect of the Bill is the introduction of citizenship as a foundation subject. That goes to the heart of the Government's agenda to involve children in these institutions and in society generally. However, I am concerned about a matter that specially relates to Wales. Citizenship is not included as a foundation subject in the national curriculum for Wales. That is a matter of concern, and I should like to flag it up briefly now, because the National Assembly for Wales has the power to incorporate citizenship under the Bill and by the powers that have been devolved to the Assembly. It is important that the Assembly buys into the concept of citizenship and educates our children about our institutions and their duties in society. It is unfortunate that that issue has not been considered in as much detail as it ought to have been. It is important that the Assembly closely considers the issue, and I hope that it will introduce the measures that apply in England.

Phil Willis: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has had to raise an issue on Third Reading that, frankly, should have been raised in Committee, but we were not able to discuss it then.
	The great sadness for me now is that we were promised in the Green Paper and the White Paper that the Bill would revolutionise secondary education. We were told that this would be the big reform of secondary education, but what we have is a hollow sham of a Bill. At the end of Second Reading, the debates in Committee and, I presume, Third Reading, we still do not know what it actually means.
	In reality, all hon. Members should recognise the fact that this is the first Education Bill that establishes a national system of education, controlled and ordered by the Secretary of State. She will have all the powers necessary to do whatever she wants in future. However, a Labour Government will not always be in power—a Liberal Democrat Government soon will be—and the powers that the Secretary of State will be given under the Bill can be used not in a benign way, but in a pernicious way by other Governments in future.
	When we finish with the Bill tonight, all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and were involved in the debates on Report will know that the Bill's character will be determined by regulation and secondary legislation. That is the heart of the Bill, and most people will know nothing about it until it starts to appear on head teachers' desks in the form of regulations produced by the Department for Education and Skills.
	The Bill will totally bypass local education authorities. Perhaps Conservative Members think that a good idea—that is a fair point, which they can make—but the Secretary of State has further neutered the powers of LEAs. They are not allowed to innovate; all they have to do is facilitate. Powers over their budgets have been taken from them and the Secretary of State can determine what they spend on their schools. What is the point of having local authorities involved if the Secretary of State can dictate from the centre what schools will do, how and when they will do it and how much they will have to spend?
	The Bill promises greater diversity. There will be greater diversity—that is correct—but it will be diversity without equality. By the end of this Parliament, 50 per cent. of our schools will be specialist schools, but 50 per cent. of them will not be. They will be something else—presumably still "bog standard" in the Government's terms. That disastrous slur has never been removed.
	Schools will obtain more autonomy, but only those 10 per cent. that the Secretary of State believes should get it. Schools will have greater powers to innovate, but they will not be the schools that need to innovate the most. Only the ones that the Secretary of State chooses will be able to innovate. There will be academies, but the House does not know what form they will take. Companies will be able to run schools and those companies can be traded on the stock market. We know that, but we do not know what else is involved.
	This is a sham of a Bill of which the Secretary of State should be ashamed. Liberal Democrats will certainly vote against its Third Reading.

Adam Price: If democracy in England has been poorly served by the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill, democracy in Wales has been utterly failed. Education has always been at the heart of our concerns in Wales, because we have always had a historical commitment to state education as a means of personal and collective advancement.
	On the whole of Report, we had just six minutes to deal with the clauses relating to Wales. More clauses relate to Wales than there are clauses relating to England, but we did not have a vote on the issues that affect Wales. The Minister also misrepresented the views of the trade unions in Wales on the devolution of pay and conditions. That was absolutely scandalous. We heard from the Secretary of State for Health the other week that he did not "do" Wales. The virus of Taffism has now apparently spread to the Department for Education and Skills.
	We are glad that there are enabling powers in the Bill that will allow us to reject new Labour's policies for education in Wales: no to naming and shaming of schools; no to specialist schools; no to school league tables; no to privatisation. I look forward to the day when we have a Government in the Assembly who will use those enabling powers to give us a policy that is made in Wales for the people of Wales and that will drive up standards for the people of Wales.

Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State has taken to herself powers that many tyrants have not had. As a result of the Bill, she will be able to dictate. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) accurately pointed out, we shall have to wait for the orders and we shall have little chance to discuss them. In fact, by diktat, the Secretary of State will impose things on schools.
	Anyone who is truly concerned about the quality of education in this country and who has a real concern for parliamentary democracy should leave the House tonight thoroughly ashamed at the way in which the Bill has been steamrollered through by an intolerant, arrogant and appalling Government who do not really care for the quality of education and who do not have a single care for the quality of legislation.
	These proceedings have been an affront to the democratic dignity of everyone of our constituents in whichever constituency we represent on whatever side of the House. No Labour Member can go back with pride to his constituents and say, "We have discussed education; we have improved the Bill; and we have put through the House a Bill that has received proper scrutiny, examination and a thorough discussion so that it will raise standards for you. We can explain why." Labour Members have voted like zombies; they have a supported a Bill that has not been properly examined; they should be ashamed of themselves.

John Gummer: What is going to be taught in the citizenship classes about the democratic system of the House? How will the Secretary of State explain that we did not discuss the key issues of the Bill? How will citizenship be taught by a Government who hate the House of Commons and give us no chance to discuss the issues? A generation has been betrayed by the Secretary of State and the Government. She is establishing a series of classes in every one of which children will learn of the shame of tonight, of the shame of the Secretary of State and of the shame of the Government.

Chris Grayling: Head teachers want a measure that will reduce bureaucracy, ease teachers' work loads and sort out the problems of discipline in the classroom. The Bill will do none of those—

It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
	That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
	Question agreed to.

SOUTHEND GENERAL HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Teddy Taylor: My apologies to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), for raising the subject at this late hour, but I think that you know that it is not my fault.
	This debate is about the future of the South Essex cancer network and the Southend cancer care centre, and the scope of the treatment and surgery that they provide. I hope to obtain assurances from the Minister that the 1 million patient rule will not be applied indiscriminately, thereby reducing the scope of treatment at the hospital and undermining the centre's success.
	The cancer centre deals with patients from a population of about 680,000, which is represented by four MPs. On the basis of comments made at a meeting with the Southend Hospital NHS Trust and consultants on Monday, which was arranged by hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), we are united in our views. I hope that, following my short speech, it will be possible for my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) to speak; the Minister has kindly agreed, subject to your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so long as she has good time to reply.
	The Minister is subjected to many complaints about the health service, as were the previous Government. I hope that she will be reassured to learn that the service provided by the cancer centre is of a very high standard, is greatly appreciated by the community, and is very successful according to published figures. She will know that while other centres in the region do not, according to the Southend consultants, publish figures, Southend tables, compared with those of regions which do publish figures, show that our centre has a high achievement record, both for routine treatments and for involvement in research. What is the problem? Of course, there is no threat to the centre itself, as the Minister confirmed in a written answer, and there is no immediate threat to the treatment of the more common cancers like lung, breast and colorectal, which make up about 50 per cent. of cases. However, other areas of treatment, such as upper gastro-intestinal, head and neck, haematology, urology, and possibly gynaecology, could be subject to transfer to hospitals as far away as Ipswich, Colchester and London.
	What is the basis of the 1 million rule, particularly when it is not applied to sparsely populated areas, where 500,000 is accepted? The argument is that the larger centres will be more successful, on the basis of what is called best evidence. If the evidence shows that Southend is already successful by comparison with other centres, would it not be reasonable to leave the service as it is?
	The second argument is that for some cancers such as gastric and oesophageal, the operations should be carried out by surgeons with a sufficiently high number of such procedures for a meaningful audit of outcomes, and the guidance quotes a figure of at least 10 per year. In the case of the South Essex cancer network, however, there are approximately 80 such resections every year, which is well above many of the networks with a population of 1 million.
	I hope that the Minister will also consider the impact on the needs of other patients if specialist surgeons are removed to other centres. I could quote many examples, but if we take the case of benign upper gastro-intestinal conditions, and if we remove the two accredited upper GI surgeons from South Essex, a specialty in which there is an acute shortage, how can we be expected to transfer cases to other networks that do not have the capacity to take on extra work?
	We have been told that Professor Richards, the national cancer director, has been given the task of reviewing the South Essex situation. I am in no doubt that when he sees the stature and success of the centre, he will wish to help us. The crucial question is whether he has an instruction from the Department to implement the 1 million rule as far as possible.
	My hope and that of my colleagues, and the hope of all who work in the hospital, is that the Minister will state clearly and unambiguously this evening that as the centre has achieved success and clinical excellence, the region and the national cancer director will be permitted to recommend that it should be allowed to continue, and thereby to maintain the superb service and safeguard patients from long journeys to other centres.
	I know that the Minister continually hears constituency arguments making the case that the situation in one constituency is splendid, but I hope that she will accept that in this case there is a genuine, strong and compelling argument. If something is working well, it is to the benefit of society and all the people in the community if we let well alone.

David Amess: Communities are invariably fiercely loyal to their hospitals. In that regard, Southend is no exception. For that reason, I was horrified when Southend hospital was given a one-star rating. Under no criterion was that justified. It is well known that local residents have the highest regard for the hard-working staff at Southend hospital and the wonderful service that they offer. In particular, the cancer service is first class. If the Minister cares to consider the outcomes at Southend compared with others, they are well above the average.
	Having looked at the cancer plan, I understand why the Government were minded to draw up the plan. I applaud it. Following the meeting which my three colleagues and I had at Southend hospital on Monday, we have a number of genuine concerns, which we ask the Minister to consider. As she knows, although the hospital is situated in the constituency that I represent, it also serves the constituents of my three colleagues. Unfortunately, since anxiety was raised among the general public—it had nothing to do with local Members of Parliament—there has been an outpouring of concern.
	I was delighted that the Secretary of State for Health decided to write a personal letter to the editor of the Evening Echo. That was much appreciated. However, the letter raised a number of concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) said, under the auspices of the new cancer taskforce led by Professor Mike Richards, the reference to areas of 1 million inhabitants is particularly worrying. Certainly, as far as local residents are concerned, we have a first-class service. The argument that the cancers are minor and that their treatment should take place in other parts of the country would be very distressing to people in an area that is populated by a higher proportion of elderly people than other parts of the country. I ask the Minister to consider that important factor.
	As we have a first-class service and that is what the Government want, why change it? Monday's meeting was very productive and educated us on a number of issues. It was not biased at all. It demonstrated that, with a new consultant having been appointed at Southend hospital, some concern has already been expressed about morale generally, because it is argued that if the rarer cancers were taken away from the hospital, there would unfortunately be a knock-on effect.
	I say very gently to the Minister that this is a warning shot across the bows. Local people will not just stand idly by and let their service be reduced in any way below the excellent standard that we currently have. I ask her to consider very carefully the pleas that my hon. Friends and I are making.

Bob Spink: I am very grateful to be given the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
	Castle Point people value very highly the cancer services at Southend hospital. Today, I questioned Professor Richards, the cancer tsar, in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in an evidence session on cancer care and research. He was very well briefed and knew about the situation in Southend. It will be interesting to read the transcript of that exchange. I made a couple of notes. He said:
	"I am absolutely confirming that Southend will be retained as a cancer centre."
	I suppose that that is the case to some degree, and certainly for the more common cancers. We are grateful for that undertaking, which was extracted by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). However, Professor Richards went on to explain that some patients with less common cancers who need surgery would get better outcomes if they were treated in specialist centres. He quoted much evidence from around the world to illustrate that point. We all know that if we had a child with one of these rare cancers, we would not want them to go to just any hospital, even if it was local. We would want them to go to the very best hospital where they would get the best outcome. We are approaching this matter in a very grown-up manner.
	The cancer tsar also said that Southend hospital cancer centre was "excellent". Residents and staff at the hospital are grateful for that acknowledgement, as the hospital really is excellent. He said that he would liaise with the eastern regional office to ensure that we get the best possible solution for local people. That is all we can ask from the Minister. I am delighted to see that she is giving her time tonight to listen to us.
	Finally, the Evening Echo, and the two Southend MPs in particular, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), have done a very great community service in drawing attention to the problem and in getting the undertakings that we have so far been given. Castle Point people are indeed indebted to them.

Mark Francois: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on securing this debate, which is of great importance to residents throughout south-east Essex. I thank him and other speakers for allowing me to make a quick contribution.
	As I have only a short time, I shall concentrate what might be called the thin-end-of-the-wedge issue. If the Government decide to transfer some specialist cancer operations from Southend, perhaps to Ipswich, because Southend is said to lack a catchment area of 1 million patients, what will prevent them, after establishing that precedent, from deciding that other sorts of operations should be done elsewhere?
	If several services are moved, it could be argued that the remainder of the services may as well be moved because Southend does not have a catchment area of 1 million. That anxiety has been raised with me by my constituents and people in surrounding areas. I should be grateful if the Minister gave us assurances on that.
	My constituents in Rayleigh want the service to be preserved mainly as it is. So do I. Southend hospital's record on cancer treatment is excellent. The service is not broken, so I implore the Minister not to fix it.

Hazel Blears: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on securing an important debate. Approximately eight times the usual number of hon. Members for Adjournment debates are in the Chamber, and I stress that quality as well as quantity is present. I know that the hon. Gentleman recently tabled a parliamentary question on the matter and that he has pursued it assiduously. Much local concern has been expressed in the local media. My hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) have raised the matter with me and sought assurances about the future of the service.
	Before I deal with the specific issues in Southend, I should like to place them in the context of the cancer plan, which hon. Members have mentioned, and the continuing work to improve services throughout the country. I shall then explain the effects on Southend. It is wrong to view the matter in isolation; the thrust of the cancer plan is about setting up networks in which people work collaboratively rather than in isolation.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made a responsible contribution. He acknowledged the tensions between excellence and access and talked about getting the balance right between services that are close to home and those that are in specialist centres. We all want our constituents to have access to the best services for treating especially complex illnesses.
	The contribution of the hon. Member for Castle Point was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who failed to grasp the issue. We are not considering removing services or salami- slicing, but improvements. In the past, our record on cancer has not been wonderful, but it is now improving dramatically, although we have some way to go before we achieve the same outcomes as other European countries. There is no question of reducing the services that are available to local people.
	It is now widely accepted that the national health service has been underfunded for decades. That means that it has had too few staff and inadequate facilities, which have not been organised into specialist cancer treatment services of the kind that exist in the rest of Europe. Our outcomes have therefore been poorer than those of many other countries.
	People have not had the necessary support through preventive care; patients have had to wait too long for diagnosis and treatment. If we are honest, they have not always received the treatment, care and support that they have a right to expect.
	The cancer plan was published only a year ago; we should reflect on the outstanding progress that has been made in that time. The plan sets out a managed way forward. We need more nurses, doctors and, crucially, more radiographers. We also need more equipment. Most of the vital equipment was old and needed replacement. We also needed to ensure that new drugs were available to everybody who could benefit from them.
	The cancer plan is backed by the biggest ever increase in funding for cancer services. This year, an extra £280 million is available to improve cancer services; next year, a further £127 million will be available. By 2003–04, the NHS will get £570 million a year more for cancer services than it received last year when we published the cancer plan. I do not think that anybody—Opposition Members or anyone else—could doubt that this represents a massive prioritisation for tackling cancer.
	But the cancer plan is not just about money. It is also about putting in place the systems, changes, clinicians and specialist teams to work together to ensure that the new investment results in improved outcomes for patients, which is what we are all interested in.
	Treatment also needs to be available much faster. All too often, waiting times have been far too long. The cancer plan sets new targets to cut waiting times, and just over 91 per cent. of people with suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks of being urgently referred by their GP between July and September 2001. That is a tremendous increase, but, again, it is not quite enough. We want to do much more.
	We need more staff and more training. By the end of 2001–02, we expect to increase the number of cancer consultants by 428 compared with 1999. That means that we are on target to reach the cancer plan aim of nearly 1,000 extra cancer consultants by 2006, which represents a tremendous investment but also perhaps illustrates what a low base we were working from before the cancer plan was put into place.
	We also need better palliative care, and the new opportunities fund is helping us to ensure that we have more consistent funding for adult hospices, for which funding is variable up and down the country. We also need more modern equipment, and we now have a programme to upgrade equipment. In total, approximately 25 per cent. of MRI scanners, 35 per cent. of CT scanners and 20 per cent. of linear accelerators now in use in the NHS are new since January 2000. There is an awful lot of new equipment now in place in the health service.
	Hon. Members have described how these policies are becoming evident in Southend, and it is good to know that the people of Southend and the surrounding area are so appreciative of the improvements. It is particularly good to hear hon. Members' praise for the staff involved in the service, and that they feel that the service is providing excellent care for their constituents.
	Hon. Members asked about guidance. I will respond first to the question about the rationale behind setting a network population of 1 million people, and its application with particular reference to Southend and upper gastro-intestinal cancers, which was the specific issue raised. One of the essential features of improving cancer outcomes in this country has been the move to create specialist diagnostic and treatment centres, in which teams of oncologists, surgeons, physicians, specialist nurses, radiologists, pathologists and many others can collectively diagnose and treat the various types of tumour. This is not simply about surgeons but about the whole diagnostic and treatment team coming together to share ideas and good practice.
	The teams are being developed within 34 cancer networks throughout the country. They typically serve populations of between 1 million and 2 million people; South Essex is one of the smallest networks, with just 680,000 people. Each cancer network has a cancer centre at its core. There is good evidence to show that specialist teams such as those that I have described produce better results. We have lagged behind Europe on outcomes.
	The expert advisory group recommended that a cancer centre should normally serve a population of more than 1 million. When there is a need to consider geographical constraints to ensure a balanced service, however, a population base of two thirds of a million should be considered an absolute minimum. Following the publication of the expert advisory group report, further guidance on individual tumour types has been, and is still being, developed.
	Networks have now almost completed the task of implementing the guidance issued on the common cancers. Over the past few years, they have created specialist teams for breast, lung and colorectal cancers. Sadly, these cancers are quite common, but that means that the numbers of patients being seen are substantial enough to warrant the creation of such centres in most district general hospitals.
	We are now moving on to develop guidance based on the care of patients with the less common cancers— for example, gynaecological, upper gastro-intestinal, urological, head and neck, and haematological cancers. Because patient numbers are, thankfully, smaller, it will not be possible to provide large multi-disciplinary teams and equipment in each local hospital. Most people would accept that that is common sense.
	In relation to the gastro-oesophageal cancers to which hon. Members have referred, the picture in this country is poor. We do not compare well with Europe and average five-year survival for gastric cancer is 12 per cent. against 20 per cent. for the average European patient. That represents a tragic and avoidable loss of life for many patients.
	Most studies show that hospitals dealing with large numbers of patients have the best outcomes. Although surgeons are key to that, they are only part of the multi-disciplinary team. Guidance issued in early 2001 to centres that care for patients with upper gastro-intestinal cancers recommended that they serve a minimum population of 1 million and, for pancreatic surgery, 2 million to 4 million. A population of 1 million normally generates about 280 oesophageal and gastric cancers, and radical surgery is appropriate for about 100 patients.
	That is the minimum appropriate to improving outcomes and the policy was recently endorsed by the council of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, so the argument for creating specialist centres is compelling. Retaining small units without proper specialist teams is not an option if we want to improve outcomes for patients.
	I want to deal with how all those national initiatives have been applied in Southend, whose hospital is part of the South Essex cancer network, which is one of five such networks in the Eastern region, but one of the smallest in the country. Clinicians across Southend, Basildon and Thurrock have a long tradition of working closely together to deliver good quality cancer care to patients, and the wider community values the holistic care that it receives from the services.
	The cancer network recently celebrated its sixth birthday. Its achievements have also been celebrated and delivery of good care for common cancers is well advanced. The care is of extremely good quality and I thank all the clinicians involved for delivering those very high standards.
	From time to time, officials review the composition of cancer networks to ensure that they are developing appropriately in accordance with the plan. South Essex was reviewed in 1999 and 2001, and concern was registered about it being very small. There is anxiety that, as it moves on to consider the less common cancers, it might have difficulty supporting an increasing number of specialist teams. It might also have difficulty attracting the high calibre of clinical specialist required. On its own, it might find it more difficult to fund staff and specialist equipment from its per capita income, so high-quality clinical collaboration with other networks must be developed.
	It has been recognised that we perhaps have to think more creatively and apply innovative approaches to achieving specialist teams among a small population base. That is exactly the work that Professor Mike Richards is undertaking with colleagues and clinicians in the area. It is not beyond our wit to find a solution that retains the very best of the high quality care that Southend provides for people of the neighbourhood as well as access to specialist teams. We can have the best of both worlds: we can ensure that care is provided close to home where appropriate and that work with neighbouring clinicians is undertaken to establish a wider network or a series of joint networks that co-operate to achieve the outcomes that people rightly want when they deal with more complex cancers.
	South Essex has two accredited surgeons towards the overall team and they are treating cases that used to be treated in London or not at all. We do not yet have the figures on outcomes, because it takes at least five years to measure the five-year survival rate. We shall monitor the figures carefully, however, and we look forward to seeing the outcomes produced by the surgeons involved.
	There is a regional group in place and it is working on the issues involved with setting up the collaborative networks, such as using ultra-sound in diagnosis to achieve best outcomes. That requires not just state-of-the-art equipment, but a specialist radiologist who would probably have been trained on that equipment in the United States. There is a great deal of development work to be done in the South Essex network. Again, that may be better served by collaboration with other networks in the Eastern region so as to achieve best advantage.
	The approach of trying to work with neighbouring networks has been endorsed by Professor Richards, by the surgeons' accrediting body, and by the body responsible for setting national cancer standards. I have every confidence that the managers and clinicians involved will find a way to solve the admittedly difficult problem of developing a gastro-oesophageal centre while conforming with best advice, and will be able to make recommendations.
	Let me confirm beyond all doubt that rumours circulating in the press that the Southend cancer centre was due to close are not true. Such a closure has never been on the agenda. The matter was raised with me by Councillor Jennifer Howlett from Castle Point, who was very concerned. I am delighted to reassure her and, indeed, the local community that the centre will not close. Moreover, the fact that we are considering ways of providing good services to deal with the more specialised cancers does not mean for a moment that we will reduce the services available to local people. Such scaremongering is unhelpful: it makes vulnerable people feel insecure when they or their relations are ill and need quality treatment.
	We want cancer services to be improved. That will require new investment, but it will also require change to ensure that we drive up our standards. Members have said, "If the system ain't broke, don't fix it." But we do not want change for its own sake; we want change because we know that people are entitled to better outcomes. For many years, our outcomes have not been comparable with those in other countries. It is time that we secured the investment and reform to ensure that our constituents have the best possible services, and I hope that those services will be available in Southend for many years.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.